NDAA Act

The government documents are often not sharing friendly, they really don’t want us to know what they are doing. The information is here, but I need to straighten it out, so please be patient, you will know when you get to the section I am still working on.

115 TH CONGRESS REPORT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session

(III)                                                  C O N T E N T S

Page Purpose of the Legislation ,…………………………………………………………………..01

Rationale for the Committee Bill …………………………………………………………………02 Hearings ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….04 Committee Position ,,…………………………………………………………………………………….04 Explanation of the Committee Amendments  ……………………………………………04 Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations ………………………………………04 Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill ………………………………05 Budget Authority Implication………………………………………………………………………05

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ………06

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ………………………………………………………………………..06 Aircraft Procurement, Army ……………………………………………………………………….06 Items of Special Interest ……………………………………………………………………………..06   Apache attack helicopters ………………………………………………………………………..06         Light utility helicopter ……………………………………………………………………………….06       Report on efforts to reduce operational and maintenance costs for CH–47 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..07      Unmanned aerial system units for Army National Guard …      ……………..07 Missile Procurement, Army ……………………………………………………………………….07 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………….07 Stinger missile modernization program ………………………………………………….07 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ………….08 Items of Special Interest ……………………………………………………………………………08 Armored brigade combat team modernization ……………………………………..08 M240 medium machine gun modernization …………………………………………09 M3E1 Carl Gustaf weapon system ……………………………………………………………10 Paladin Integrated Management ……………………………………………………………..10 Stryker upgrades ……………………………………………………………………………………….10 Procurement of Ammunition, Army ……………………………………………………….11 Items of Special Interest ……………………………………………………………………………11 M58 MICLIC ………………………………………………………………………………………………11 Other Procurement, Army ……………………………………………………………………….12 Items of Special Interest ……………………………………………………………………………12 CREW electronic counter-measure systems …………………………………………..12 Enhanced rapid airfield construction capability …………………………………….12 Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle sustainment ………………………….13 Tactical Communication and Protective Systems (TCAPS)             authorization ……………………………………………………………………………………………..13       Tactical network modernization ……………………………………………………………..13 Tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base sustainment …………………………..14 Aircraft Procurement, Navy …………………………………………………………………….14 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..14 Current and future anti-submarine warfare system study …………………..14 Long-range naval carrier aviation …………………………………………………………..15 MQ–4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Navy Reserve F/A–18 aircraft …………………………………………………………………..16 Weapons Procurement, Navy ………………………………………………………………….16 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..16 Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance ……………………………………………….16 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ……………………………………………………….17 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..17 Frigate ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life extension ………………………………..17 Other Procurement, Navy ……………………………………………………………………….18 Items of Special Interest ………………………………………………………………………….18

PageIV Arleigh Burke-class destroyer radar backfit ……………………………….18 MH–60R dipping sonar upgrades ……………………………………………………………18        SPY–6 inherent capabilities ………………………………………………………………………19 Surface ship torpedo defense ……………………………………………………………………19 Procurement, Marine Corps …………………………………………………………………….20 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..20 Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainers ……………………………………………20 Rapid acquisition of Rifle Integrated Controller …………………………………..20 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ……………………………………………………………..21 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..21 A–10 replacement wings ………………………………………………………………………….21     Air Force enlisted pilot implementation initiatives ………………………………21   B–2 secure communication modernization plan …………………………………22 C–130H modernization efforts ………………………………………………………………22 C–130H propulsion systems upgrade ……………………………………………………23 Compass Call transition plan ………………………………………………………………….23 F–15C Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survive Ability System ………24  F–35 autonomic logistics information system ……………………………………..24    F–35 canopy transparencies …………………………………………………………………..25   F–35 sustainment affordability ………………………………………………………………25 Future sustainment of remotely piloted aircraft tactical intelligence            and strike capabilities ……………………………………………………………………………..26 OA–X light attack aircraft program ………………………………………………………26 Production adjustment for KC–46A air refueling aircraft ………………….27  RQ–4 Global Hawk and EQ–4 battlefield airborne communications        node aircraft ……………………………………………………………………………………………28    Total Force C–17 Fleet Management Plan ……………………………………………28   Total Force KC–135R net centric operations and battle space               awareness ………………………………………………………………………………………………….29      U–2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………29 Missile Procurement, Air Force ……………………………………………………………..30    Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………30 AIM–120 production rate ………………………………………………………………………30    Other Procurement, Air Force ………………………………………………………………30     Items of Special Interest ………………………………………………………………………..30 Deployable Air Base Systems ………………………………………………………………..30 Procurement, Defense-Wide …………………………………………………………………31     Items of Special Interest ………………………………………………………………………..31 Common Analytical Laboratory System ……………………………………………..31    Multi-Domain Command and Control ………………………………………………..31 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………..31 Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ……………………………………..31  Section 101—Authorization of Appropriations …………………………………..31 Subtitle B—Army Programs …………………………………………………………………31 Section 111—National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment        Report ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..31       Section 112—Limitation on Availability of Funds for M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle Program ……………………………………………………………………..32 Subtitle C—Navy Programs …………………………………………………………………32 Section 121—Increase in Number of Operational Aircraft                             Carriers of the Navy ……………………………………………………………………………..32 Section 122—Procurement Authority for Ford Class Aircraft                            Carrier Program ……………………………………………………………………………………32 Section 123—Full Ship Shock Trial for Ford Class Aircraft Carrier …32 Section 124—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Amphibious           Vessels……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32

Section 125

Multiyear Procurement Authority for Standard Missile                      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….32 Section 126—Multiyear Procurement Authority for E–2D Aircraft …..32 Section 127—Multiyear Procurement Authority for                                 F/A–18E/F Aircraft and EA–18G Aircraft ………………………………………………33

Section 128—Modifications to F/A–18 Aircraft to Mitigate              Physiological Episodes ……………………………………………………………………………33 Section 129—Frigate Class Ship Program …………………………………………….33 Section 130—Limitation on Procurement of Economic Order                           Quantities for Virginia Class Submarine Program ……………………………..33 Section 131—Limitation on Use of Funds for DDG–51 Destroyers……33 Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ……………………………………………………………33

Page V

Section 141—Inventory Requirement for Air Refueling Tanker                     Aircraft; Limitation on Retirement of the KC10A Aircraft………………….33 Section 142—Limitation on Use of Funds for KC–46A Aircraft                      Pending Submittal of Certification ………………………………………………………..34 Section 143—Retirement Date for VC–25A Aircraft …………………………….34 Section 144—Contract for Logistics Support for VC–25B Aircraft ……..34 Section 145—Multiyear Procurement Authority for C–130J Aircraft….34 Section 146—Removal of Waiting Period for Limitation on              Availability of Funds for EC–130H Compass Call Recapitalization      Program ……………………………………………………………………………………………………34 Section 147—Findings and Sense of Congress Regarding KC–46               Aerial Refueling Tankers ………………………………………………………………………..34 Subtitle E—Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multi Service Matters ……………..34 Section 151—Buy-to-Budget Acquisition of F–35 Aircraft ………………….34 Section 152—Certification on Inclusion of Technology to Minimize Physiological Episodes in Certain Aircraft …………………………………………..34

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army …………………………35    Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………35 Accelerated integration to counter emerging threats …………………………35 Assured Position, Navigation and Timing ……………………………………………35 Targeted Soldier Borne Sensor efforts …………………………………………………36 Computational molecular modeling and simulation for material            development …………………………………………………………………………………………..36     Future digital munitions and integration ……………………………………………36    Future Vertical Lift …………………………………………………………………………………37 Harnessing Emerging Research Opportunities to Empower                  Soldiers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………37   High energy laser systems integration laboratory ……………………………..38 Improved Turbine Engine Program …………………………………………………….38   Initial Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense capability ……………………….38      Iron Dome experimentation and assessment for short-range air                  defense …………………………………………………………………………………………………….39 Lightweight metal matrix composite technology for combat and           tactical vehicles ………………………………………………………………………………………40       M119 105mm self-propelled artillery system technology ………………….40   Mobile camouflage system …………………………………………………………………….41 Personal Protective Equipment advance technology development…..41  Shoot-on-the-Move experimentation for short range air                          defense systems ……………………………………………………………………………………….42 Soldier power and composite armor development …………………………….42 Squad multipurpose equipment transport …………………………………………..42 Supercavitating ammunition technology …………………………………………….43 Third Generation Forward-Looking Infrared development ……………..43 Transport telemedicine system ……………………………………………………………..44 Urban warfare training ……………………………………………………………………………44 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy ……………………………45 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..45 Academic partnerships for undersea unmanned warfare research …….45 Artificial intelligence and computer vision technologies in Navy     unmanned systems …………………………………………………………………………………..45 Briefing for the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the                House Committee on Armed Services on US Navy’s efforts to                expand carrier air wing long-range strike capability …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..46 Briefing on Navy support for research into autonomous systems …….46 Briefing on ongoing engine noise reduction efforts ……………………………47 Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services ……………………..47 Defense University Research Instrumentation Program ……………………47 Directed energy and non-lethal weapons technology policy and        guidance …………………………………………………………………………………………………..48 E2–D Advanced Hawkeye Identification Friend or Foe ……………………..48   Joint Air-to-Ground Missile for fixed wing aircraft (JAGM–F)          integration ……………………………………………………………………………………………….48 Marine Corps Group 5-class unmanned aircraft development ………….49 Maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities demonstration …………………………………………………………………………………………49 Naval underwater test ranges …………………………………………………………………50 MQ–25 Unmanned Carrier Aviation program ……………………………………50    Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal recovery operations …………………..51

Page 6

Navy Next Generation Enterprise Network ……………………………………………51 Navy Theater Anti-Submarine Warfare prototyping ……………………………51 Ocular Interruption System …………………………………………………………………….52 Passive rocket propelled grenade armor protection technology ………….52 Small Business Innovation Research—Automated Test and                      Retest Program …………………………………………………………………………………………..52 TH–57 follow-on training system …………………………………………………………….53 U.S. Navy MH–60R helicopter antisubmarine warfare and aircraft                  health monitoring …………………………………………………………………………………….53  War fighter safety and performance ……………………………………………………….54 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force ……………………..54 Items of Special Interest …………………………………………………………………………..54 Academic and industrial partnerships for aerospace materials …………..54 Academic partnerships for modeling, design, and analysis of                       unmanned air platforms ………………………………………………………………………….55 Advanced engine development program ………………………………………………55 Advanced pilot training program …………………………………………………………..56 Advanced radar threat system emitters …………………………………………………56 Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generators ……………………………………………57 Aerospace composite structures manufacturing …………………………………..57      Air Force test and evaluation support …………………………………………………..57            Air Operations Center software modernization utilizing agile              development software processes ………………………………………………………………58 Autonomous life support system ……………………………………………………………..58 Education and outreach for anti-tampering and cybersecurity re-sear………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..59 F–15 ALQ–128 electronic warfare warning set …….      ……………………………59 F–35 follow-on development ……………………………………………………………………60 Metals Affordability Initiative …………………………………………………………………..60 Passive ground-based imaging of space objects ……………………………………..61 Precision metrology tools …………………………………………………………………………61 Recapitalization of Battle-Management, Command and Control, and associated intelligence capabilities in support of ground forces …………..61 Reusable hypersonic vehicle structure development …………………………….62 Robust aircraft electrical power and thermal management systems ……62 Secure-live-virtual-constructive advanced training environment ……….63 Small diameter bomb II cost reduction initiative ………………………………….63 Technology Transition Program ……………………………………………………………..63 Wide-area motion imagery intelligence capability ……………………………….64 Wind energy development radar mitigation efforts ……………………………..64 Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide …………….65 Items of Special Interest ……………………………………………………………………………65 Advanced ceramic capabilities …………………………………………………………………65 Antitoxin to combat botulinum toxin ……………………………………………………..65 Autonomous capabilities ………………………………………………………………………….66 Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program ………………………………..66 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive standoff     detection ……………………………………………………………………………… . …………………67 Common data environment for modeling and simulation …………………67 Contraband cellular devices ……………………………………………………………………67 Counter small tactical unmanned air systems ………………………………………67 Counter-unmanned aerial system threat detection ……………………………..68 Enhanced Maritime Biological Detection ……………………………………………..68 Fielding of radiation detection devices ………………………………………………….69 Future uses of synthetic biology …………………………………………………………….69 Historically black colleges and universities, and minority serving                   institutions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….69 Innovative installation capabilities …………………………………………………………70     Joint Regional Security Stacks ………………………………………………………………..70     Joint threat warning system …………………………………………………………………….70      Military Free Fall School ………………………………………………………………………….71      Minerva Research Initiative …………………………………………………………………….71 National Hypersonics Initiative ………………………………………………………………71 National lab integration in defense innovation hubs ……………………………72     Non-lethal directed energy technologies ……………………………………………….73 Protect DIB critical technologies …………………………………………………………….73 Rapidly deployable radar system ……………………………………………………………73

Page VII

Report on DoD target and threat systems ………………………………………………74 Research to enhance the understanding of adversarial influence              operations ………………………………………………………………………………………………….74          Use of authority for transactions other than contracts and grants by            the Department of Defense …………………………………………………………………….75 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS …………………………………………………………………76 Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ……………………………………….76 Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations …………………………………….76 Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ……76 Section 211—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain             Prototype Projects ……………………………………………………………………………………76 Section 212—Extension of Directed Energy Prototype Authority ……..76 Section 213—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for the                      Weather Common Component Program …………………………………………….76 Section 214—Limitation Pending Certification on the Joint                  Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Recapitalization Program …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..77 Section 215—Limitation on Availability of Funds for F–35               Continuous Capability Development and Delivery ……………………………77  Section 216—Limitation on Availability of Funds Pending Report                on Agile Software Development and Software Operations ……………….77 Section 217—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain                      High Energy Laser Advanced Technology ………………………………………….78 Section 218—Plan for Elimination or Transfer of the Strategic            Capabilities Office of the Department of Defense ………………………………78 Section 219—National Security Science and Technology Strategy …..78 Section 220—Modification of CVN–73 to Support Fielding of               MQ–25 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ……………………………………………………….78 Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ………………………………………………78 Section 221—Report on Survivability of Air Defense Artillery …………78 Section 222—Report on T–45 Aircraft Physiological Episode            Mitigation Actions …………………………………………………………………………………79 Section 223—Report on Efforts of the Air Force to Mitigate                   Physio-logical Episodes Affecting Aircraft Crew Members ……………….79 Section 224—Briefing on Use of Quantum Sciences for Military                Applications and Other Purposes …………………………………………………………79 Section 225—Report on Defense Innovation Unit Experimental ……..79 TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ………………………………79 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ………………………………………………………….79 Logistics and Sustainment Issues ………………………………………………………….79 Briefing on Rapidly Deployable Structures …………………………………………79 Corrosion Prevention for Improved Air Force Readiness …………………80 Innovative Engine Sustainment Wash-Down Management               Program………………………………………………………………………………………………….80 Leveraging Technology to Improve Equipment Readiness ……………81               Life Cycle Costs of Major Defense Acquisition Programs ………………..81 Management of Navy Legacy F/A–18 Aircraft …………………………………..82     Navy Next-Generation Small Arms Weapons Training and                Readiness Requirements ……………………………………………………………………..82            Navy Ship Maintenance and Repair …………………………………………………..83 Supply of Aviation Parts and Spares ………………………………………………….84 Readiness Issues …………………………………………………………………………………..84 Additive Manufacturing in Depot Facilities ……………………………………..84 Adversary Air Training ……………………………………………………………………….84        Army Soldier and Squad Virtual Trainer ………………………………………….85 Assessment of Navy Standard Workweek …………………………………………85 Availability and Sufficiency of Training Ranges to Conduct                           Training against Near-Peer Adversaries ……………………………………………85  Briefing on Security Forces Assistance Brigade Location Plan … …..86 CONUS Training Facilities …………………………………………………………………86     Entry Control Facility Technology ………………………………………………. …..87 Foreign Language Readiness ……………………………………………………………..87 Forward Deployed Naval Force Ship Maintenance and Repair             Capacity ………………………………………………………………………………………………88 Immersive Virtual Shipboard Environment Training ……………………88 Information Operations …………………………………………………………………….89       Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training Solution Enhancements ..89 Military Working Dog Capacity and Facilities …………………………………90 Modeling and Simulation for Training, Exercises, and Joint                               Planning ………………………………………………………………………………………………90

Page VIII

Modernization and Integration of Major Range and Test                                     Facilities Bases ……………………………………………………………………………………….91    Surface Fleet Live Fire Training …………………………………………………………..91 Universal Camouflage Inventory and Overdye Technology …………….91     Other Matters ………………………………………………………………………………………..92          Air Refueling Capability and Capacity ……………………………………………….92 Disposition of Excess Military Ground Vehicles ………………………………..92 Fluorine-Free Fire Fighting Foam ……………………………………………………….93 Improving Water Security and Efficiency on Installations ……………….93         Joint Navy-Coast Guard Arctic Strategy ……………………………………………..94 Meeting Readiness Requirements Efficiently …………………………………….94 Motorcycle Safety Training …………………………………………………………………94     Open-Air Disposal of Munitions and Munition Constituen……………..95 Physical Security at U.S. Shipyards …………………………………………………….95  Quality of Life at Remote Sites …………………………………………………………..96 Regional Biosecurity Plan ……………………………………………………………………96  Review of Household Good Weight Allowances ……………………………….96  Review of Mandatory Training Required by Law ……………………………..97 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………97 Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations …………………………………….97 Section 301—Authorization of Appropriations ………………………………….97 Subtitle B—Energy and Environment …………………………………………………97 Section 311—Inclusion of Consideration of Energy and Climate       Resiliency Efforts in Master Plans for Major Military Installations …97 Section 312—Use of Proceeds from Sales of Electrical Energy               Derived from Geothermal Resources for Projects at Military         Installations Where Resources Are Located ………………………………………97 Section 313—Extension of Authorized Periods of Permitted              Incidental Takings of Marine Mammals in the Course of Specified    Activities by Department of Defense …………………………………………………98 Section 314—State Management and Conservation of Species……….98 Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment ……………………………………………..98 Section 321—Examination of Naval Vessels ……………………………………..98 Section 322—Overhaul and Repair of Naval Vessels in Foreign                  Ship-yards …………………………………………………………………………………………….98  Section 323—Limitation on Length of Overseas Forward              Deployment of Naval Vessels ……………………………………………………………..98   Section 324—Temporary Modification of Workload Carryover                     Formula………………………………………………………………………………………………..99   Section 325—Limitation on Use of Funds for Implementation                        of Elements of Master Plan for Redevelopment of Former Ship                   Repair Facility in Guam ……………………………………………………………………..99    Section 326—Business Case Analysis for Proposed Relocation                         of J85 Engine Regional Repair Center ………………………………………………99    Section 327—Army Advanced and Additive Manufacturing                     Center of Excellence …………………………………………………………………………..99    Subtitle D—Reports ……………………………………………………………………………99    Section 331—Matters for Inclusion in Quarterly Reports on                 Personnel and Unit Readiness …………………………………………………………..99       Section 332—Annual Comptroller General Reviews of Readiness                   of Armed Forces to Conduct Full Spectrum Operations ……………. 100      Section 333—Surface Warfare Training Improvement ……………… 100          Section 334—Report on Optimizing Surface Navy Vessel                 Inspections and Crew Certifications ………………………………………………. 100    Subtitle E—Other Matters ………………………………………………………………. 101  Section 341—Coast Guard Representation on Explosive Safety                         Board ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 101               Section 342—Shiloh National Military Park Boundary                              Adjustment and Parker’s Crossroads Battlefield Designation . …….. 101 Section 343—Sense of Congress Regarding Critical Minerals ……… 101  TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS …………. 101 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS …………………………………………………………… 101 Subtitle A—Active Forces ……………………………………………………………… …. 101 Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ………………………………… 101 Section 402—Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength                Minimum Levels ……………………………………………………………………………….. 102 Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ………………………………………………………………. 102 Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ………………………….. 102

Page IX

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in                             Support of the Reserves ………………………………………………………………………. 102 Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status….. 103 Section 414—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel                              Authorized To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support ……………… 103 Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ……………………………………… 104 Section 421—Military Personnel …………………………………………………………… 104 TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ……………………………………. 104 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST …………………………………………………… …… 104 Active Military Service of the Korean Constabulary ………………………….. 104 Best Practices for Prevention and Response to Sexual Assault …………. 104 Briefing on Commissioning Production of Senior Reserve Officer         Training Corps ………………………………………………………………………………………. 105 Briefing on Credentialing Programs …………………………………………………… 105 Briefing on Department of Defense Inspector General Processing           Times ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 105 Comptroller General Report on Active Duty Female Retention ……… 106    De-conflicting Reserve Component and Expeditionary Civilian            Deployments to Provide Adequate Dwell Time ……………………………….. 106 Federal Wildland Firefighting Education in the Transition                  Assistance Program (TAP) ……………………………………………………………………. 107 Foreign Area Officer Personnel Training and Career Management .. 108 Foster and Adoptive Military Families ………………………………………………. 108 Implicit Bias Training …………………………………………………………………………. 109 Incorporating Consideration of Advanced Technologies into         Professional Military Education …………………………………………………………. 109 Interagency Recruitment Cooperation Efforts …………………………………. 110   Joint Professional Military Education and Professional Military                 Education Curricula …………………………………………………………………………….. 111 Military Academy Preparatory School Class Enrollment ……………….. 111 Report on Certain Victims’ Rights in Connection with Prosecution                  of Sex-Related Offenses ……………………………………………………………………… 112 Report on Legal Training for Commanders …………………………………….. 112 Report on Processes for Federal Recognition of Promotion of            Commissioned National Guard Officers …………………………………………… 113     U.S. Air Force Pilot Staff Requirements Validation ………………………….. 114      U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and                Families Program Contract Support …………………………………………………. 114 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS …………………………………………………………….. 115 Subtitle A—Regular Component Management ……………………………….. 115 Section 501—Expansion of Authority to Award Constructive                  Service Credit for Advanced Education, Experience, or Training,                upon Original Appointment as a Commissioned Officer ………………… 115 Section 502—Surface Warfare Officers Career Paths ……………………….. 115 Section 503—Authority of Selection Boards to Recommend                  Officers of Particular Merit Be Placed at the Top of the Promotion                List …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 115 Section 504—Deferred Deployment for Members Who Give Birth . 115 Section 505—Codification of Lowered Grade for Retired Officers                     or Persons Who Committed Misconduct in a Lower Grade ……………. 116 Section 506—Retention of Military Technicians Who Lose Dual              Status under Certain Circumstances ………………………………………………….. 116 Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management ………………………………… 116 Section 511—Placement of National Guard Military Technicians               (Dual Status) in the Competitive Service …………………………………………… 116 Section 512—Authorized Strength and Distribution in Grade…………. 116 Section 513—National Guard Promotion Accountability ………………… 116 Section 514—Extension of Authority for Pilot Program on Use                        of Re-tired Senior Enlisted Members of the Army National Guard                 as Army National Guard Recruiters …………………………………………………… 116 Subtitle C—General Service Authorities and Correction of                     Military Records ………………………………………………………………………………….. 117 Section 521—Enlistments Vital to the National Interest ………………….. 117 Section 522—Statement of Benefits ………………………………………………….. 117 Section 523—Modification to Forms of Support That May Be              Accepted in Support of the Mission of the Defense POW/MIA         Accounting Agency ……………………………………………………………………………… 117 Section 524—Correction of Military Records Website ……………………. 117

Page X

Section 525—Modification of DD Form 214 to Include Email                Addresses…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 117 .Section 526—Public Availability of Reports Related to Senior Leader Misconduct ………………………………………………………………………………………… 117   Section 527—Appointment and Training of Personnel to Staff                            the Board of Corrections for Military and Naval Records …………….. 117 Subtitle D—Military Justice ……………………………………………………………… 118 Section 531—Minimum Confinement Period Required for                  Conviction of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by                 Members of the Armed Forces ………………………………………………………… 118 Section 532—Punitive Article in the Uniform Code of Military                 Justice on Domestic Violence …………………………………………………………… 118 Section 533—Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation,               Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed                         Forces ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 118  Section 534—Modification of Military Rules of Evidence to                    Exclude Admissibility of General Military Character toward             Probability of Innocence in Any Offense Not Strictly Related to Performance of Military Duties …………………………………………………………. 118 Section 535—Improved Crime Reporting ………………………………………… 118 Section 536—Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management              Program ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 118 Subtitle E—Other Legal Matters ……………………………………………………….. 119 Section 541—Security Clearance Reinvestigation of Certain                Personnel Who Commit Certain Offenses ……………………………………….. 119 Section 542—Consideration of Application for Transfer for a                    Student of a Military Service Academy Who Is the Victim of a                        Sexual Assault or Related Offense ……………………………………………………… 119 Section 543—Standardization of Policies Related to Expedited            Transfer in Cases of Sexual Assault …………………………………………………… 119 Section 544—Development of Oversight Plan for Implementation                 of Department of Defense Harassment Prevention and Response            Policy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 119 Section 545—Development of Resource Guides Regarding Sexual                Assault for the Military Service Academies …………………………………….. 119 Section 546—Report on Victims in MCIO Reports ………………………… 119 Subtitle F—Member Education, Training, Resilience, and                   Transition …………………………………………………………………………………………… 120 Section 551—Permanent Career Intermission Program ……………….. 120 Section 552—Improvements to Transition Assistance Program ….. 120 Section 553—Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty          Members at the Joint Special Operations University ……………………. 120 Section 554—Program to Assist Members of the Armed Forces in                Obtaining Professional Credentials ………………………………………………… 120 Section 555—Extension of Pilot Program to Assist Members in             Obtaining Post-Service Employment …………………………………………….. 120 Section 556—Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members                        of the Reserve Components and Veterans ……………………………………… 120 Section 557—Extended Duration of Availability of Military                             One Source Program Services for Members of the Armed Forces              upon their Separation or Retirement ……………………………………………… 121 Section 558—Comptroller General Briefing and Report on                       Permanent Employment Assistance Centers …………………………………. 121 Section 559—Activities to Increase Awareness of Apprenticeship                Programs ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 121 Subtitle G—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family            Readiness Matters ……………………………………………………………………………… 121 Section 561—Enhancement and Clarification of Family Support                   Serv-ices for Family Members of Members of Special Operations         Forces …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 121 Section 562—Additional Matters for Assessment and Report on                    Child-care Services of the Department of Defense ………………………… 121 Section 563—Continued Assistance to Schools with Significant                Numbers of Military Dependent Students ……………………………………….. 121 Section 564—Department of Defense Education Activity                Misconduct Database ………………………………………………………………………….. 122 Section 565—Report on Assessment of Frequency of Permanent          Changes of Station of Members of the Armed Forces on               Employment among Military Spouses ……………………………………………… 122 Subtitle H—Decorations and Awards ………………………………………………… 122 Section 571—Limitations on Authority to Revoke Certain Military Decorations Awarded to Members of the Armed Forces ………………… 122

Page XI

Section 572—Authorization for Award of Expeditionary Medal to              Certain Marines for Actions on June 8, 1995 ……………………………………….. 122 Subtitle I—Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters ……………………….. 122 Section 581—Public Availability of Top-Line Numbers of Deployed Members of the Armed Forces ……………………………………………………………….. 122 Section 582—Criteria for Interment at Arlington National Cemetery … 122 Section 583—Report on General and Flag Officer Costs ………………………. 123 Section 584—Report on Outside Employment of Senior Personnel …… 123 Section 585—Limitation on Use of Funds Pending Submittal of Report        on Army Marketing and Advertising Program ………………………………………. 123 TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL                         BENEFITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 123 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST …………………………………………………………….. 123 Availability of Alcohol at Military Commissary Stores …………………………. 123 Examination of Flexible/Noncontinuous Maternity Leave ………………….. 123 Imminent Danger Pay Adjudication Process …………………………………………. 124 Small Business Purchasing Contracts for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables           for the Defense Commissary Agency (‘‘DeCA’’) …………………………………….. 124 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 125 Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ……………………………………………………………… 125 Section 601—Prompt Review of Request for Imminent Danger Pay …. 125 Section 602—Application of Basic Allowance for Housing to               Members of the Uniformed Services in the Virgin Islands …………………. 125 Section 603—Mandatory Increase in Insurance Coverage under          Service members’ Group Life Insurance for Members Deployed to     Combat Theaters of Operation ……………………………………………………………… 125 Section 604—Military Housing Privatization Initiative ………………………. 125 Section 605—Per Diem Allowance Policies …………………………………………. 125 Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special Incentive Pays …………………………………. 126 Section 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Expiring Bonus and               Special Pay Authorities ………………………………………………………………………….. 126 Subtitle C—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………….. 126 Section 621—Expansions of Installation Benefits to Surviving Spouses, Dependent Children, and Other Next of Kin …………………………………….. 126 Section 622—Transportation on Military Aircraft on a Space                     Available Basis for Disabled Veterans with a Service-Connected,              Permanent Disability Rated as Total …………………………………………………… 126 Section 623—Extension of Parking Expenses Allowance to Civilian            Employees at Recruiting Facilities ……………………………………………………… 126 Section 624—Advisory Boards Regarding Military Commissaries and Exchanges …………………………………………………………………………………….. 127 Section 625—Study and Report on Development of a Single Defense Resale System ……………………………………………………………………………….. 127 TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………… 127 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 127 Advanced Pain Management Fellows Program …………………………………… 127 Athletic Trainers ………………………………………………………………………………. 127 Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) …………………………………………. 128 Comprehensive Women’s Health for Active Duty ……………………………….. 128 Department of Defense Action Plan for Countering Infectious Diseases . 128 Diabetes Prevention Program ……………………………………………………………. 129 Direct Report Language on National Guard Mental Health ………………… 129 Exceptional Family Member Program ……………………………………………….. 130 GAO Audit of TRICARE ……………………………………………………………………. 130 Global Health Engagement Organization Consolidation ……………………… 131 Improving Delivery of Mental Health Services …………………………………… 131 Improving Health Care Choices for Severely Injured Service Members .. 132 Joint Advanced Orthopedic Surgical Training ……………………………………. 132 Mental Health Care in the Military Health System ……………………………. 132 Military Entrance Processing Command Physical Examination Model … 133 Military Nurse Work Experience ……………………………………………………….. 134 Military Nutrition and Diet Planning ………………………………………………… 134 Mitigating Work Place Violence in Military Treatment Facilities ……….. 135 Orthotics for New Recruits ……………………………………………………………….. 135 Periodic Health Assessment Analysis ………………………………………………… 135 Podiatric Surgeons in the Military …………………………………………………….. 136 Podiatry in the Military ……………………………………………………………………. 136 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXII Study on CT Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve Computed To-mography in the Military Health System ……………………………………….. 137 Support for Global Health Security Agenda and Briefing on Joint Staff Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………….. 137 Therapeutic Service Dog Training Program for Service Members ……….. 138 TRICARE Managed Care Support Contractor Reporting …………………….. 138 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 139 Subtitle A—TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits ………………………… 139 Section 701—TRICARE Medicare Advantage Demonstration Program .. 139 Section 702—Pilot Program on Treatment of Members of the Armed Forces for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Related to Military Sexual Trauma …………………………………………………………………………………………. 139 Section 703—Pilot Program on Cryopreservation and Storage ……………. 139 Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ………………………………………………. 139 Section 711—Transition of Administration by Defense Health Agency of Military Medical Treatment Facilities ………………………………………… 139 Section 712—Sharing Information with State Prescription Drug Moni-toring Programs …………………………………………………………………………….. 139 Section 713—Improvement to Notification to Congress of Hospitaliza-tion of Combat-Wounded Members of the Armed Forces …………………. 139 Section 714—Improvements to Trauma Center Partnerships ……………… 140 Section 715—Wounded Warrior Policy Review …………………………………… 140 Section 716—Joint Force Medical Capabilities Development and Stand-ardization ……………………………………………………………………………………… 140 Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ………………………………………………… 140 Section 721—Establishment of Triservice Dental Research Program …… 140 Section 722—Increasing the Number of Appointed Directors of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medi-cine ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 140 Section 723—Extension of Authority for Joint Department of Defense- Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 140 Section 724—Inclusion of Gambling Disorder in Health Assessments and Related Research Efforts of the Department of Defense ……………. 140 Section 725—Medical Simulation Technology and Live Tissue Training within the Department of Defense ………………………………………………….. 141 Section 726—Limitation on Changes to Federal Emergency Services Certification Levels of the Air Force ……………………………………………….. 141 Section 727—Strategic Medical Research Plan …………………………………… 141 Section 728—Independent Evaluation of Mental Health Care …………….. 141 Section 729—Study on Reimbursement Rates for Mental Health Care Providers under TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select in the East and West Regions of the TRICARE Program ………………………………….. 141 TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS ………………………………………………………………………….. 141 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 141 Assessment of Acquisition Workforce …………………………………………………. 141 Briefing on Athletic Footwear for New Recruits …………………………………. 142 Comptroller General Report on the Issuance of Regulations in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement ………………………. 142 Contract Incentives for Superior Supplier Performance ………………………. 143 Core Logistics Capability ………………………………………………………………….. 143 Data Rights Impact to Sustainment ………………………………………………….. 143 Domestic Samarium Cobalt Magnet Manufacturing …………………………… 144 Ensuring Availability of Beryllium ……………………………………………………. 144 Final Activities of and Archiving of Records for Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations ………………………. 145 Installation of Command, Control, Communication and Computer Sys-tems ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 145 Mandatory Arbitration Briefing …………………………………………………………. 146 Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program …………………………………. 146 National Defense Stockpile ……………………………………………………………….. 147 Navy Build-to-Print Cost Savings ……………………………………………………… 147 One Hundred Percent Employee-Owned Contractors ………………………….. 147 Report on REE-Bearing Waste Recycling …………………………………………… 147 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 148 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXIII Subtitle A—Streamlining of Defense Acquisition Statutes and Regula-tions ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 148 Section 800—Effective Dates; Coordination of Amendments ……………….. 148 Part I—Consolidation of Defense Acquisition Statutes in New Part V of Subtitle A of Title 10, United States Code …………………………………… 148 Section 801—Framework for New Part V of Subtitle A ………………………. 148 Part II—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitles B, C, and D to Provide Room for New Part V of Subtitle A …………………………….. 149 Section 806—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitle D of Title 10, United States Code—Air Force ……………………………………… 149 Section 807—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitle C of Title 10, United States Code—Navy and Marine Corps ……………….. 149 Section 808—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitle B of Title 10, United States Code—Army …………………………………………… 150 Section 809—Cross References to Redesignated Sections and Chapters . 150 Part III—Repeals of Certain Provisions of Defense Acquisition Law …….. 150 Section 811—Amendment to and Repeal of Statutory Requirements for Certain Positions or Offices in the Department of Defense …………. 150 Section 812—Repeal of Certain Defense Acquisition Laws ………………….. 151 Section 813—Repeal of Certain Department of Defense Reporting Re-quirements ……………………………………………………………………………………. 151 Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations …………………………………………………………………………….. 151 Section 821—Contract Goal for the AbilityOne Program …………………….. 151 Section 822—Increased Micro-Purchase Threshold Applicable to De-partment of Defense Procurements ………………………………………………… 151 Section 823—Preference for Offerors Employing Veterans ………………….. 151 Section 824—Revision of Requirement to Submit Information on Serv-ices Contracts to Congress ……………………………………………………………… 152 Section 825—Data Collection and Inventory for Services Contracts …….. 153 Section 826—Competition Requirements for Purchases from Federal Prison Industries …………………………………………………………………………… 153 Section 827—Requirement for a Fair and Reasonable Price for Tech-nical Data Before Development or Production of Major Weapon Sys-tems ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 153 Section 828—Revisions in Authority Relating to Program Cost Targets and Fielding Targets for Major Defense Acquisition Programs ………… 153 Section 829—Revision of Timeline for Use of the Rapid Fielding Path-way for Acquisition Programs ………………………………………………………… 154 Section 830—Clarification of Services Contracting Definitions ……………. 154 Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Commercial Items ……………………………. 154 Section 831—Revision of Definition of Commercial Item for Purposes of Federal Acquisition Statutes ………………………………………………………. 154 Section 832—Definition of Subcontract ………………………………………………. 155 Section 833—Limitation on Applicability to Department of Defense Commercial Contracts of Certain Provisions of Law and Certain Ex-ecutive Orders and Regulations ……………………………………………………… 155 Section 834—Modifications to Procurement through Commercial E- Commerce Portals …………………………………………………………………………. 155 Subtitle D—Industrial Base Matters …………………………………………………….. 155 Section 841—Requirement That Certain Ship Components Be Manufac-tured in the National Technology and Industrial Base ……………………. 155 Section 842—Report on Domestic Sourcing of Specific Components for All Naval Vessels …………………………………………………………………………… 156 Section 843—Removal of National Interest Determination Require-ments for Certain Entities ……………………………………………………………… 156 Section 844—Pilot Program to Test Machine-Vision Technologies to Determine the Authenticity and Security of Microelectronic Parts in Weapon Systems ……………………………………………………………………….. 156 Subtitle E—Small Business Matters …………………………………………………….. 157 Section 851—Department of Defense Small Business Strategy …………… 157 Section 852—Prompt Payments of Small Business Contractors ………….. 157 Section 853—Increased Participation in the Small Business Adminis-tration Microloan Program …………………………………………………………….. 158 Section 854—Amendments to Small Business Innovation Research Pro-gram and Small Business Technology Transfer Program …………………. 158 Section 855—Construction Contract Administration …………………………… 158 VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:51 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXIV Section 856—Broadband and Emerging Information Technology Coordi-nator …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 158 Section 857—Amendments to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 159 Section 858—Consolidated Budget Justification for the Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program ………………………………………….. 159 Section 859—Funding for Procurement Technical Assistance Program .. 159 Section 860—Exemption of Certain Contracts from the Periodic Infla-tion Adjustments to the Acquisition-Related Dollar Threshold ………… 159 Subtitle F—Other Matters ……………………………………………………………………. 159 Section 871—Additional Requirements for Negotiations for Noncom-mercial Computer Software ……………………………………………………………. 159 Section 872—Removal of Requirement for Risk and Sensitivity Analysis of Baseline Estimates in Selected Acquisition Reports …………………….. 160 Section 873—Prohibition on Acquisition of Sensitive Materials from Non-Allied Foreign Nations ……………………………………………………………. 160 Section 874—Transfer or Possession of Defense Items for National De-fense Purposes ………………………………………………………………………………. 160 Section 875—Expedited Hiring Authority for Shortage Category Posi-tions in the Acquisition Workforce ………………………………………………….. 160 Section 876—Extension of Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 161 Section 877—Repeal of Certain Determinations Required for Grants of Exceptions to Cost or Pricing Data Certification Requirements and Waivers of Cost Accounting Standards …………………………………….. 161 Section 878—Reporting on Projects Performed through Transactions Other Than Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, and Grants ………….. 161 Section 879—Standardization of Formatting and Public Accessibility of Department of Defense Reports to Congress ……………………………….. 162 Section 880—Defending United States Government Communications …. 162 TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGE-MENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 164 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 164 Subtitle A—Organization and Management of the Department of Defense Generally ………………………………………………………………………………………. 164 Section 901—Authority of Secretary of Defense to Determine Command and Control Relationships ……………………………………………………………… 164 Section 902—Civilian Personnel Management ……………………………………. 164 Section 903—Performance of Civilian Functions by Military Personnel . 164 Section 904—Roles of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence ………………………………………………. 164 Section 905—Designation of Navy Commanders ………………………………… 165 Subtitle B—Comprehensive Pentagon Bureaucracy Reform and Reduc-tion ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 165 Section 911—Authorities and Responsibilities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense ……………………………………………… 165 Section 912—Authorities and Responsibilities of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense ………………………………………………………… 166 Section 913—Transition of Certain Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities ……………………………………………………………… 167 Section 914—Actions to Increase the Efficiency and Transparency of the Defense Logistics Agency …………………………………………………………. 167 Section 915—Review of Functions of Defense Contract Audit Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency ……………………………………. 167 Section 916—Streamlining of Defense Finance and Accounting Serv-ices ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 168 Section 917—Reduction in Number of Chief Information Officers in the Senior Executive Service ………………………………………………………….. 168 Section 918—General Provisions ……………………………………………………….. 168 Subtitle C—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………… 168 Section 921—Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Policy and Oversight Council ………………………………………………………………………….. 168 Section 922—Limitation on Transfer of the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Division of the Navy ………………………………………. 169 TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS …………………………………………………………… 169 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 169

PageXV Counter-Drug Activities ……………………………………………………………………….. 169 Colombian Security and the U.S.-Colombian Partnership …………………… 169 DOD Support to Combating the Opioid Epidemic ………………………………. 170 United States-Mexico Security Cooperation ……………………………………….. 170 Other Matters ……………………………………………………………………………………… 170 Assessment of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Involuntary Mobilization Plans to Support Special Operations Activities ……………. 170 Briefing on Ukrainian Special Operations Forces Training …………………. 171 Civil Support Team Information Management System ……………………….. 172 Close Combat Lethality Task Force …………………………………………………… 172 Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Authority for United States Facili-ties and Assets ………………………………………………………………………………. 173 Counterterrorism Effectiveness Research …………………………………………… 174 Development and Procurement of Combat Equipment and Clothing for Female Servicemembers in Combat Occupations ……………………….. 175 Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account ………………………………………………. 176 Friendly Force Identification in Close Air Support ……………………………… 176 Genetic and Medical Information Security …………………………………………. 177 MQ–9 Enterprise Supporting Air Combat Command and Air Force Special Operations Command Activities …………………………………………. 177 National Guard Access to Department of Defense Owned Unmanned Aircraft Systems ……………………………………………………………………………. 178 Preparedness of U.S. Forces to Counter North Korean Chemical and Biological Weapons ………………………………………………………………………… 179 Report on NORTHCOM Response to Hurricane Maria ……………………….. 179 Review of National Guard Capabilities in Support of Incident Aware-ness and Assessment Mission Operations ……………………………………….. 179 Senior Civilian or Military Leaders in Charge of Audit and Financial Management …………………………………………………………………………………. 180 Soo Locks …………………………………………………………………………………………. 180 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 181 Subtitle A—Financial Matters ……………………………………………………………… 181 Section 1001—General Transfer Authority ………………………………………… 181 Section 1002—Expertise in Audit Remediation ………………………………….. 181 Section 1003—Authority to transfer funds to Director of National Intel-ligence for CAPNET ………………………………………………………………………. 181 Section 1004—Independent Public Accountant Audit of Financial Sys-tems of the Department of Defense ………………………………………………… 181 Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities ………………………………………………………. 182 Section 1011—Department of Defense Support for Combating Opioid Trafficking and Abuse ……………………………………………………………………. 182 Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ……………………………………………… 182 Section 1021—Inclusion of Operation and Sustainment Costs in Annual Naval Vessel Construction Plans ……………………………………………………. 182 Section 1022—Purchase of Vessels Using Funds in National Defense Sealift Fund ………………………………………………………………………………….. 182 Section 1023—Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards with Funds in National Defense Sealift Fund …………………………………………. 182 Section 1024—Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Chapter 633 of Title 10, United States Code, and Other Provisions of Law Regard-ing Naval Vessels ………………………………………………………………………….. 182 Section 1025—Retention of Navy Hospital Ship Capability ………………… 182 Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ………………………………………………………………. 183 Section 1031—Definition of Sensitive Military Operation …………………… 183 Section 1032—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States …………………………………………………….. 183 Section 1033—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 …………………….. 183 Section 1034—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Certain Countries …………………………………………………….. 183 Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations …………………………. 183 Section 1041—Notification on the Provision of Defense Sensitive Sup-port ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 183 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXVI Section 1042—Coordinating United States Response to Malign Foreign Influence Operations and Campaigns …………………………………………….. 184 Section 1043—Workforce Issues for Military Realignments in the Pa-cific ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 184 Section 1044—Mitigation of Operational Risks Posed to Certain Mili-tary Aircraft by Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Equip-ment ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 184 Section 1045—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unmanned Sur-face Vehicles …………………………………………………………………………………. 184 Section 1046—Program for Department of Defense Controlled Unclassi-fied Information in the Hands of Industry ………………………………………. 185 Section 1047—Protection of Emerging and Foundational Technologies .. 185 Subtitle F—Studies and Reports …………………………………………………………… 185 Section 1051—Additional Matter for Inclusion in Annual Report on Civilian Casualties in Connection with United States Military Oper-ations ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 185 Section 1052—Department of Defense Review and Assessment on Ad-vances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning …………………… 185 Section 1053—Report on Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure ………. 186 Section 1054—Report on Proposed Consolidation of Department of De-fense Global Messaging and Counter Messaging Capabilities ………….. 186 Section 1055—Comprehensive Review of Professionalism and Ethics Programs for Special Operations Forces …………………………………………. 186 Section 1056—Munitions Assessments and Future-Years Defense Pro-gram Requirements ……………………………………………………………………….. 186 Section 1057—Report on Establishment of Army Futures Command ….. 186 Section 1058—Assessment of Department of Defense Electromagnetic Spectrum Warfare Enterprise ………………………………………………………… 187 Section 1059—Report on Support for Non-Contiguous States and Terri-tories in the Event of Threats and Incidents …………………………………… 187 Section 1060—Report on Low-Boom Flight Demonstration …………………. 187 Section 1061—Report on Cyber-Enabled Information Operations ……….. 187 Subtitle G—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………… 188 Section 1071—Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Amendments ……….. 188 Section 1072—Principal Advisor on Countering Weapons of Mass De-struction ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 188 Section 1073—Receipt of Firearm or Ammunition ……………………………… 188 Section 1074—Federal Charter for Spirit of America ………………………….. 188 Section 1075—Transfer of Aircraft to Other Departments ………………….. 188 Section 1076—Reauthorization of National Aviation Heritage Area ……. 188 Section 1077—Recognition of America’s Veterans ………………………………. 188 Section 1078—National Commission on Military Aviation Safety ……….. 189 Section 1079—Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support ….. 189 Section 1080—Sense of Congress on Adversary Air Capabilities …………. 189 Section 1081—Sense of Congress Regarding Organic Attack Aviator Training Capability ……………………………………………………………………….. 189 Section 1082—Sense of Congress on the Legacy, Contributions, and Sacrifices of American Indian and Alaska Natives in the Armed Forces …………………………………………………………………………………………… 189 Section 1083—Amateur Radio Parity …………………………………………………. 190 Section 1084—Sense of Congress Regarding the International Borders of the United States ………………………………………………………………………. 190 Section 1085—Program to Commemorate 75th Anniversary of World War II …………………………………………………………………………………………… 190 TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS …………………………………………. 190 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 190 Civilian Talent Recruitment ……………………………………………………………… 190 Direct Hiring Authority …………………………………………………………………….. 191 Presidential Management Fellows Program ……………………………………….. 191 Recruitment and Hiring of Navy Astronomers ……………………………………. 192 Workplace Flexibility for Federal Civilians ………………………………………… 192 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 193 Section 1101—Direct Hire Authority for the Department of Defense for Certain Competitive Service Positions ………………………………………. 193 Section 1102—Modification of Direct Hire Authority for the Depart-ment of Defense for Post-Secondary Students and Recent Graduates . 193 VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:51 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXVII Section 1103—Extension of Overtime Rate Authority for Department of the Navy Employees Performing Work Aboard or Dockside in Support of the Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 193 Section 1104—One-Year Extension and Expansion of Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas ………………. 193 Section 1105—Appointment of Retired Members of the Armed Forces to Positions in or under the Department of Defense ………………………… 193 Section 1106—Extension of Authority to Conduct Telework Travel Ex-penses Test Programs ……………………………………………………………………. 194 Section 1107—Personnel Demonstration Projects ………………………………. 194 Section 1108—Expanded Flexibility in Selecting Candidates from Refer-ral Lists ………………………………………………………………………………………… 194 Section 1109—Temporary and Term Appointments in the Competitive Service ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 194 TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS …………………….. 194 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 194 Carrier Presence in the Middle East ………………………………………………….. 194 Casualty Evacuation in U.S. Africa Command Area of Operations ……… 195 Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa ………………………………………… 195 Coordinating Efforts to Counter the Malign Activities of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation Across Combatant Commands ……………………………………………………………………………………. 196 Department of Defense Inspector General Audit of Foreign Military Sales …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 196 Foreign Military Sales ………………………………………………………………………. 197 Improved Coordination of Activities in Africa with International Part-ners ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 197 International Armaments Cooperation ………………………………………………. 198 Multilateral Cooperation on the Korean Peninsula …………………………….. 198 Naval Mine Countermeasure Capability in the U.S. Central Command’s Area of Operations ………………………………………………………………………… 199 Non-Standard Acquisition in Foreign Military Sales ………………………….. 199 Report on New START Treaty …………………………………………………………… 200 Report on U.S. Casualty Estimates for Armed Conflict with North Korea ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 200 Security and Stability in Venezuela …………………………………………………… 201 Support to Syrian Women …………………………………………………………………. 201 Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces ……………………………………………………………………………… 201 Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) ……………………… 202 U.S. Military Education and Training Locations ………………………………… 203 Western Hemisphere Region Report on Strategy to Increase Engage-ment with Region ………………………………………………………………………….. 203 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 204 Subtitle A—Assistance and Training …………………………………………………….. 204 Section 1201—Report on the Use of Security Cooperation Authorities … 204 Section 1202—Clarification of Authority to Waive Certain Expenses for Activities of the Regional Centers for Security Studies ………………. 204 Section 1203—NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence … 205 Section 1204—NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence .. 205 Section 1205—Participation in and Support of the Inter-American De-fense College …………………………………………………………………………………. 205 Section 1206—Increase in Cost Limitation for Small Scale Construction Related to Security Cooperation …………………………………………………….. 205 Section 1207—Report on Security Cooperation with Haiti ………………….. 205 Section 1208—Review and Report on Processes and Procedures Used to Carry Out Section 362 of Title 10, United States Code ………………… 205 Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan …………………… 206 Section 1211—Extension of Authority to Transfer Defense Articles and Provide Defense Services to the Military and Security Forces of Af-ghanistan ……………………………………………………………………………………… 206 Section 1212—Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military Operations …………………………………………………………………………………….. 206 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXVIII Section 1213—Extension and Modification of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program …………………………………………………………………………. 206 Section 1214—Report on Assistance to Pakistan ………………………………… 206 Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran …………………………… 206 Section 1221—Extension and Modification of Authority to Provide As-sistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria …………………… 206 Section 1222—Extension of Authority to Provide Assistance to the Vet-ted Syrian Opposition ……………………………………………………………………. 207 Section 1223—Extension and Modification of Authority to Support Op-erations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq … 207 Section 1224—Sense of Congress on Ballistic Missile Cooperation to Counter Iran …………………………………………………………………………………. 207 Section 1225—Strategy to Counter Destabilizing Activities of Iran …….. 207 Section 1226—Report on Compliance of Iran under the Chemical Weap-ons Convention ……………………………………………………………………………… 208 Section 1227—Report on Potential Release of Chemical Weapons or Chemical Weapons Precursors from Barzeh Research and Develop-ment Center and Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage and Bunker Facilities in Homs Province of Syria …………………………………… 208 Section 1228—Report on Cooperation between Iran and the Russian Federation …………………………………………………………………………………….. 208 Subtitle D—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation ……………………….. 208 Section 1231—Prohibition on Availability of Funds Relating to Sov-ereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea ……………………………… 208 Section 1232—Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating to Imple-mentation of the Open Skies Treaty ……………………………………………….. 209 Section 1233—Comprehensive Response to the Russian Federation’s Material Breach of the INF Treaty …………………………………………………. 210 Section 1234—Modification and Extension of Ukraine Security Assist-ance Initiative ……………………………………………………………………………….. 210 Section 1235—Statement of Policy on United States Military Invest-ment in Europe ……………………………………………………………………………… 211 Section 1236—Imposition of Sanctions with Respect to Certain Persons Providing Sophisticated Goods, Services, or Technologies for Use in the Production of Major Defense Equipment or Advanced Conven-tional Weapons ……………………………………………………………………………… 211 Section 1237—Extension of Limitation on Military Cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation ……………………………….. 212 Section 1238—Sense of Congress regarding Russia’s Violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention ………………………………………………………. 212 Section 1239—United States Actions regarding Material Breach of INF Treaty by the Russian Federation ………………………………………………….. 212 Section 1240—Limitation on Availability of Funds to Extend the Imple-mentation of the New START Treaty ……………………………………………… 212 Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region ……………………….. 213 Section 1251—Support for Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative …………………. 213 Section 1252—United States Strategy on China …………………………………. 213 Section 1253—Strengthening Taiwan’s Force Readiness …………………….. 213 Section 1254—Modification, Redesignation, and Extension of Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative …………………………………………………… 214 Section 1255—Missile Defense Exercises in the Indo-Pacific Region with United States Regional Allies and Partners ……………………………. 214 Section 1256—Quadrilateral Cooperation and Exercise ………………………. 214 Section 1257—Name of United States Indo-Pacific Command …………….. 214 Section 1258—Requirement for Critical Languages and Expertise in Chinese, Korean, and Russian ……………………………………………………….. 215 Section 1259—Modification of Report Required under Enhancing De-fense and Security Cooperation with India ……………………………………… 215 Section 1260—Statement of Policy on Naval Vessel Transfers to Japan . 215 Section 1261—Report and Public Notification on China’s Military, Mar-itime, and Air Activities in the Indo-Pacific Region …………………………. 215 Section 1262—Senior Defense Engagement with Taiwan ……………………. 216 Section 1263—Limitation on Use of Funds to Reduce the Total Number of Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty Who Are Deployed to the Republic of Korea ………………………………………………………………… 216 Section 1264—Enhancing Missile Defense Cooperation with Partners … 216 Subtitle F—Other Matters ……………………………………………………………………. 216 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXIX Section 1271—Report on Status of the United States Relationship with the Republic of Turkey …………………………………………………………………… 216 Section 1272—Sense of Congress on Unity of Gulf Cooperation Council Member Countries …………………………………………………………………………. 217 Section 1273—Report on United States Government Police Training and Equipping Programs for Mexico ………………………………………………. 217 Section 1274—Authority to Increase Engagement and Military-to-Mili-tary Cooperation with Western Balkans Countries …………………………. 217 Section 1275—Technical Corrections Relating to Defense Security Co-operation Statutory Reorganization ………………………………………………… 218 Section 1276—United States-Israel Countering Unmanned Aerial Sys-tems Cooperation …………………………………………………………………………… 218 Section 1277—Three-Year Extension of Authorization of Non-Conven-tional Assisted Recovery Capabilities ……………………………………………… 218 Section 1278—Revision of Statutory References to Former NATO Sup-port Organizations and Related NATO Agreements ………………………… 218 Section 1279—Sense of the Congress Concerning Military-to-Military Dialogues ………………………………………………………………………………………. 218 Section 1280—Modifications to Global Engagement Center ………………… 218 Section 1281—Report on Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements .. 219 Section 1282—Prohibition on Provision of Weapons and Other Forms of Support to Certain Organizations ……………………………………………….. 219 Section 1283—Certification and Authority to Terminate Funding for Academic Research Relating to Foreign Talent Programs ……………….. 219 Section 1284—Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia ……………………. 219 Section 1285—Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania ……………………………………………………………………………………… 219 Section 1286—Report on United States Strategy in Yemen ………………… 219 Section 1287—Report on Hizballah ……………………………………………………. 220 TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ………………………………… 220 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 220 Future of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ………………………… 220 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 221 Section 1301—Funding Allocations ……………………………………………………. 221 Section 1302—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds …… 221 TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ………………………………………………….. 221 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 221 Subtitle A—Military Programs ……………………………………………………………… 221 Section 1401—Working Capital Funds ………………………………………………. 221 Section 1402—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense …. 221 Section 1403—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense- Wide ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 221 Section 1404—Defense Inspector General ………………………………………….. 221 Section 1405—Defense Health Program …………………………………………….. 221 Section 1406—National Defense Sealift Fund …………………………………….. 222 Subtitle B—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………… 222 Section 1411—Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demon-stration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illi-nois ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 222 Section 1412—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Re-tirement Home ………………………………………………………………………………. 222 Section 1413—Quarterly Briefing on Progress of Chemical Demili-tarization Program ………………………………………………………………………… 222 TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ……………………………………….. 222 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 222 Cargo Inspections to Counter Vehicle Borne IED Threats …………………… 222 National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account …………….. 223 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 223 Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations …………………………………………. 223 Section 1501—Purpose of Certain Authorizations of Appropriations ……. 223 Section 1502—Procurement ………………………………………………………………. 224 Section 1503—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ……………… 224 Section 1504—Operation and Maintenance ………………………………………… 224 Section 1505—Military Personnel ……………………………………………………… 224 Section 1506—Working Capital Funds ………………………………………………. 224

PageXX Section 1507—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense- Wide ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 224 Section 1508—Defense Inspector General ………………………………………….. 224 Section 1509—Defense Health Program …………………………………………….. 224 Subtitle B—Financial Matters ……………………………………………………………… 224 Section 1511—Treatment as Additional Authorizations ……………………… 224 Section 1512—Special Transfer Authority ………………………………………….. 225 Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters ……………………………. 225 Section 1521—Afghanistan Security Forces Fund ………………………………. 225 Section 1522—Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund ………………………….. 225 TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS …………………………………………………………………………………………… 225 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 225 Space Activities ……………………………………………………………………………………. 225 Briefing on Deployed Satellite Communications Terminals …………………. 225 Briefing on Supply Chain for In-Space Propulsion Thrusters ……………… 226 Commercial Satellite Imagery …………………………………………………………… 226 Commercial Space Situational Awareness Capabilities ………………………. 226 Criteria for Launch Service Agreement Down-Select ………………………….. 227 GPS Backup Demonstration ……………………………………………………………… 227 Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization …………………………….. 227 Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Mission Enhancement …………………………… 228 Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared Satellites …………………… 228 Plan for Use of Allied Launch Services in Case of Emergency Need ……. 228 Portable Satellite Data Receiver Status …………………………………………….. 229 Rapid Satellite Capability Reconstitution …………………………………………… 229 Satellite Communications …………………………………………………………………. 230 Space Flag Exercise and Responsive Launch ……………………………………… 230 Use of Commercial Items in Follow-On Wideband Communications Sys-tem ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 231 Missile Defense Programs …………………………………………………………………….. 231 Airborne Tracking and Targeting System ………………………………………….. 231 Cruise Missile Threat to Hawaii ……………………………………………………….. 232 Cybersecurity of Ballistic Missile Defense System ……………………………… 232 Hypersonic Defense ………………………………………………………………………….. 232 Maintenance of Patriot Batteries ………………………………………………………. 233 Options to Supplement Missile Defense of Hawaii ……………………………… 233 Patriot Interceptor Inventory …………………………………………………………….. 234 Protection of Ballistic Missile Defense System Components ………………… 234 Standard Missile-3 Testing and Reliability ………………………………………… 234 Warfighter Procedures for Responding to and Releasing Information Regarding an Inbound Ballistic Missile Threat ……………………………….. 235 Nuclear Forces …………………………………………………………………………………….. 236 Air Force Global Strike Command and Nuclear Deterrence Institute ….. 236 B83–1 Nuclear Gravity Bomb ……………………………………………………………. 236 Comptroller General Review of Plans to Swap B61 Bombs in Europe …. 237 Nuclear Survivability and Hostile Environments Testing …………………… 237 Perimeter Security at NATO Nuclear Bases ………………………………………. 238 Plutonium Pit Production and Reuse …………………………………………………. 239 Tonopah Test Range Land Use Agreement ………………………………………… 239 Cyber-Related Matters …………………………………………………………………………. 240 Addressing Readiness Deficiencies through the Hacking for Defense Innovation Education Program ………………………………………………………. 240 Comptroller General Review of Current Military Cyber Operations ……. 240 Comptroller General Review of Information Operations Strategy ……….. 241 Cyber Scholarship Program ………………………………………………………………. 242 Information Security Continuous Monitoring and Comply-to-Connect Implementation …………………………………………………………………………….. 242 Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure …………………………………………….. 243 Mitigation of Autonomous Systems ……………………………………………………. 243 Network Protection …………………………………………………………………………… 244 Operational Cyber Testing of Weapons Systems ………………………………… 244 Plan to Enhance Coordination with Universities and Industry on Cyber Education ……………………………………………………………………………………… 244 Securing Personally Identifiable Information …………………………………….. 245 Threat Cyberspace Operations ………………………………………………………….. 245 Intelligence Matters …………………………………………………………………………….. 246 VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:51 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXI Foundational Intelligence Analysis Modernization ……………………………… 246 Insider Threat Detection and User Activity Monitoring ……………………… 246 Insider Threat Risk Model Validation ……………………………………………….. 246 Intelligence Combat Support Agencies ………………………………………………. 247 Intelligence Support to Cyber Operations ………………………………………….. 247 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Careers in Defense Intel-ligence …………………………………………………………………………………………… 248 Security and Intelligence Role in Export Control ……………………………….. 248 Security Clearance Background Investigation Reciprocity …………………… 248 Strengthening Oversight of the Military Intelligence Program Budget … 249 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 250 Subtitle A—Space Activities …………………………………………………………………. 250 Section 1601—Improvements to Acquisition System, Personnel, and Or-ganization of Space Forces …………………………………………………………….. 250 Section 1602—Rapid, Responsive, and Reliable Space Launch ……………. 250 Section 1603—Provision of Space Situational Awareness Services and Information …………………………………………………………………………………… 250 Section 1604—Budget Assessments for National Security Space Pro-grams ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 251 Section 1605—Enhancement of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capacity ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 251 Section 1606—Use of Small- and Medium-Size Buses for Strategic and Tactical Satellite Payloads …………………………………………………………….. 251 Section 1607—Designation of Component of Department of Defense Responsible for Coordination of Modernization Efforts Relating to Military-Code Capable GPS Receiver Cards ……………………………………. 252 Section 1608—Designation of Component of Department of Defense Responsible for Coordination of Hosted Payload Information …………… 252 Section 1609—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Joint Space Op-erations Center Mission System …………………………………………………….. 252 Section 1610—Evaluation and Enhanced Security of Supply Chain for Protected Satellite Communications Programs and Overhead Per-sistent Infrared Systems ………………………………………………………………… 252 Section 1611—Report on Protected Satellite Communications …………….. 253 Section 1612—Plan on Space Warfighting Readiness …………………………. 253 Section 1613—Study on Space-Based Radio Frequency Mapping ………… 253 Section 1614—Plan to Provide Persistent Weather Imagery for United States Central Command ………………………………………………………………. 253 Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities ……… 253 Section 1621—Role of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence ……… 253 Section 1622—Security Clearance for Dual Nationals ………………………… 253 Section 1623—Department of Defense Counterintelligence Polygraph Program ………………………………………………………………………………………… 254 Section 1624—Defense Intelligence Business Management Systems …… 254 Section 1625—Modification to Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, Sur-veillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Com-mands …………………………………………………………………………………………… 254 Section 1626—Prohibition on the Availability of Funds for Department of Defense Assuming Background Investigation Mission for the Fed-eral Government ……………………………………………………………………………. 254 Subtitle C—Cyberspace-Related Matters ………………………………………………. 254 Section 1631—Amendments to Pilot Program Regarding Cyber Vulner-abilities of Department of Defense Critical Infrastructure ……………….. 254 Section 1632—Budget Display for Cyber Vulnerability Evaluations and Mitigation Activities for Major Weapon Systems of the Department of Defense ……………………………………………………………………………………… 255 Section 1633—Transfer of Responsibility for the Department of Defense Information Network to United States Cyber Command …………………. 255 Section 1634—Pilot Program Authority to Enhance Cybersecurity and Resiliency of Critical Infrastructure ……………………………………………….. 255 Section 1635—Pilot Program on Regional Cyber Security Training Cen-ter for the Army National Guard ……………………………………………………. 255 Section 1636—Procedures and Reporting Requirement on Cybersecurity Breaches and Loss of Personally Identifiable Information ……………….. 255 Section 1637—Cyber Institutes at the Senior Military Colleges ………….. 256 Section 1638—Study and Report on Reserve Component Cyber Civil Support Teams ……………………………………………………………………………… 256 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXII Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces ………………………………………………………………….. 256 Section 1641—Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineer-ing and the Nuclear Weapons Council ……………………………………………. 256 Section 1642—Long-Range Standoff Weapon Requirements ……………….. 256 Section 1643—Acceleration of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Pro-gram and Long-Range Standoff Weapon Program …………………………… 256 Section 1644—Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of Interconti-nental Ballistic Missile Fuzes ………………………………………………………… 257 Section 1645—Prohibition on Reduction of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles of the United States …………………………………………………………. 257 Section 1646—Extension of Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Mobile Variant of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Missile ………….. 257 Section 1647—Independent Study on Nuclear Weapons Launch-Under- Attack Option ……………………………………………………………………………….. 257 Section 1648—Extension of Annual Report on the Plan for the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, Nuclear Weapons De-livery Systems, and Nuclear Weapons Command and Control System 258 Section 1649—Sense of Congress on Nuclear Posture of the United States ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 258 Section 1650—Sense of Congress on Extended Nuclear Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific Region ………………………………………………………………….. 258 Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs ………………………………………………….. 258 Section 1661—Development of Persistent Space-Based Sensor Architec-ture ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 258 Section 1662—Boost Phase Ballistic Missile Defense ………………………….. 258 Section 1663—Improvements to Research and Development and Acqui-sition Processes of Missile Defense Agency ……………………………………… 259 Section 1664—Layered Defense of the United States Homeland …………. 259 Section 1665—Testing of Redesigned Kill Vehicle Prior to Production …. 260 Section 1666—Requirements for Ballistic Missile Defense Capable Ships …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 260 Section 1667—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Standard Missile- 3 Block IB Missiles ………………………………………………………………………… 260 Section 1668—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor ………………………………………………. 260 Section 1669—Missile Defense Radar in Hawaii ………………………………… 260 Section 1670—Reports on Unfunded Priorities of the Missile Defense Agency ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 261 Section 1671—Report on Ballistic Missile Defense ……………………………… 261 Section 1672—Sense of Congress on Missile and Rocket Defense Co-operation between the United States and Israel ……………………………… 261 Subtitle F—Other Matters ……………………………………………………………………. 261 Section 1681—Extension of Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Similar Events …………………………………………………………………………………………… 261 Section 1682—Procurement of Ammonium Perchlorate and Other Chemicals for Use in Solid Rocket Motors ………………………………………. 261 Section 1683—Conventional Prompt Global Strike Hypersonic Capabili-ties ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 262 Section 1684—Report Regarding Industrial Base for Large Solid Rocket Motors ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 262 Section 1685—National Intelligence Estimate with Respect to Russian and Chinese Interference in Democratic Countries …………………………. 262 DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ………………. 263 PURPOSE ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 263 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW ……… 263 Section 2001—Short Title …………………………………………………………………. 263 Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be Specified by Law ………………………………………………………………………. 263 Section 2003—Effective Date …………………………………………………………….. 263 TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ……………………………………… 263 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 263 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 264 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 264 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 264 Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 264 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXIII Section 2102—Family Housing ………………………………………………………….. 264 Section 2103—Authorization of Appropriations, Army ………………………… 264 Section 2104—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 265 TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION …………………………………….. 265 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 265 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 265 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 265 Aegis Ashore Poland Austere Housing ……………………………………………….. 267 Infrastructure in Support of Submarine Training and Operational Re-quirements ……………………………………………………………………………………. 268 Public Shipyard Infrastructure ………………………………………………………….. 268 Red Hill Bulk Underground Fuel Storage Facility ……………………………… 269 Tijuana Sewage Runoff ……………………………………………………………………… 269 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 270 Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270 Section 2202—Family Housing ………………………………………………………….. 270 Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units …………. 270 Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy ………………………… 270 TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ………………………….. 271 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 271 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 271 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 271 Infrastructure Investments in Support of Research and Development Contracts ………………………………………………………………………………………. 273 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 273 Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 273 Section 2302—Family Housing ………………………………………………………….. 273 Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units …………. 273 Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ………………….. 274 Section 2305—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Phased Project Authorized in Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, and 2017 ………………… 274 Section 2306—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2017 Project ………………………………………………………………………….. 274 Section 2307—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Project ………………………………………………………………………….. 274 Section 2308—Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2019 Projects …………………………………………………………………………………. 274 Section 2309—Additional Authority to Carry Out Project at Travis Air Force Base, California, in Fiscal Year 2019 ………………………………. 274 TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ………….. 275 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 275 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 275 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 276 Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Ac-quisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………… 276 Section 2402—Authorized Energy Conservation Projects ……………………. 276 Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies ………. 276 Section 2404—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 277 TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS ……………………………………………. 277 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 277 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 277 Facilities and Infrastructure for U.S. Military Personnel at North At-lantic Treaty Organization Host Nation Bases ………………………………… 277 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 278 Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Pro-gram …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 278 Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 278 Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ………………………. 278 Subtitle B—Host Country In-Kind Contributions ………………………………….. 278 Section 2511—Republic of Korea Funded Construction Projects ………….. 278 TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES …………………… 278 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXIV SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 278 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 278 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 278 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 279 Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations … 279 Section 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ………………………………………………………………. 279 Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acqui-sition Projects ……………………………………………………………………………….. 279 Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ……………………………………. 279 Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ……………………………………………………………………….. 279 Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ……………………………………………………………………….. 280 Section 2606—Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and Reserve …………………………………………………………………………………………. 280 Subtitle B—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………… 280 Section 2611—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2016 Project ………………………………………………………………………….. 280 Section 2612—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Project ………………………………………………………………………….. 280 Section 2613—Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2019 Project ………………………………………………………………………………….. 280 TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ………… 280 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 280 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 281 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 281 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 281 Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and Closure Activities Funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account …………………………………………………………………………….. 281 Section 2702—Additional Authority to Realign or Close Certain Mili-tary Installations …………………………………………………………………………… 281 Section 2703—Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round ……………………………………………………………. 281 TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ……. 281 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 281 Allied Pilot Training on Advanced Pilot Trainer ………………………………… 281 Comptroller General Review of Utilities Privatization ………………………… 282 Core Sampling at Joint Base San Antonio …………………………………………. 282 Department of Defense Lands Leases in Hawaii ………………………………… 283 Incremental Funding of Military Construction Projects ………………………. 283 Naval Academy Dairy Farm ……………………………………………………………… 284 Operational Energy Technologies ………………………………………………………. 284 Privatization of On-Base Lodging ………………………………………………………. 284 Relocation of Defense Non-Tactical Generator and Rail Equipment Cen-ter, Hill Air Force Base, Utah ………………………………………………………… 285 Wireless Communications on Base …………………………………………………….. 285 Yucca Mountain ……………………………………………………………………………….. 286 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 287 Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 287 Section 2801—Commercial Construction Standards for Facilities on Leased Property …………………………………………………………………………….. 287 Section 2802—Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use Oper-ation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Outside the United States ………………………………………………………………………………… 287 Section 2803—Small Business Set-Aside for Contracts for Architectural and Engineering Services and Construction Design ………………………… 287 Section 2804—Authority to Obtain Architectural and Engineering Serv-ices and Construction Design for Defense Laboratory Modernization Program ………………………………………………………………………………………… 287 Section 2805—Repeal of Limitation on Certain Guam Project …………….. 287 Section 2806—Enhancing Force Protection and Safety on Military In-stallations ……………………………………………………………………………………… 287 Section 2807—Limitation on Use of Funds for Acquisition of Furnished Energy for New Medical Center in Germany ………………………………….. 288 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXV Section 2808—Treatment of Leases of Non-Excess Property Entered into with Insured Depository Institutions ……………………………………….. 288 Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ……………………….. 288 Section 2811—Optional Participation in Collection of Information on Unutilized and Underutilized Military Installation Properties Avail-able for Homeless Assistance …………………………………………………………. 288 Section 2812—Force Structure Plans and Infrastructure Capabilities Necessary to Support the Force Structure ………………………………………. 288 Section 2813—Retrofitting Existing Windows in Military Family Hous-ing Units To Be Equipped with Fall Prevention Devices …………………. 288 Section 2814—Updating Prohibition on Use of Certain Assessment of Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations to Supersede Funding of Certain Projects …………………………………………………………… 289 Subtitle C—Land Conveyances …………………………………………………………….. 289 Section 2821—Authority for Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction over Certain Lands, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona …………………………………………………………………………………………. 289 Section 2822—Public Inventory of Guam Land Parcels for Transfer to Government of Guam ………………………………………………………………… 289 Section 2823—Land Conveyance, Naval Academy Dairy Farm, Gam-brills, Maryland …………………………………………………………………………….. 289 Section 2824—Technical Correction of Description of Limestone Hills Training Area Land Withdrawal and Reservation, Montana ……………. 289 Section 2825—Land Conveyance, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Rich County, Utah ………………………………………………………………………………… 290 Subtitle D—Military Land Withdrawals ……………………………………………….. 290 Section 2831—Indefinite Duration of Certain Military Land With-drawals and Reservations and Improved Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands ………………………………………………………………………. 290 Section 2832—Designation of Potential Wilderness Area ……………………. 290 Subtitle E—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………… 290 Section 2841—Defense Community Infrastructure Program ……………….. 290 Section 2842—Restrictions on Use of Funds for Development of Public Infrastructure in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands ……….. 290 Section 2843—Study and Report on Coleman Bridge, York River, Vir-ginia ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 290 Section 2844—Certifications Required Prior to Transfer of Certain Vet-erans Memorial Object …………………………………………………………………… 291 TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CON-STRUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 291 SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 291 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 291 Explanation of Funding Adjustments ………………………………………………… 291 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 292 Section 2901—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 292 Section 2902—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 292 Section 2903—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………………………. 292 Section 2904—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Ac-quisition Projects …………………………………………………………………………… 292 Section 2905—Authorization of Appropriations ………………………………….. 292 Section 2906—Restrictions on Use of Funds for Planning and Design Costs of European Deterrence Initiative Projects …………………………….. 292 DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AU-THORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ……………………………….. 293 TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PRO-GRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 293 OVERVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 293 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 293 National Nuclear Security Administration ……………………………………………. 293 Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 293 Weapons Activities ……………………………………………………………………………. 293 Defense Nuclear Security and related construction projects …………….. 293 Directed Stockpile Work ………………………………………………………………… 294

PageXXVI Domestic uranium …………………………………………………………………………. 294 Fusion technology pathways …………………………………………………………… 295 Inertial Confinement Fusion ………………………………………………………….. 296 Infrastructure ……………………………………………………………………………….. 297 Lithium and tritium ………………………………………………………………………. 297 Report on IW–1 and W78 replacement ……………………………………………. 298 Secure transportation asset and Mobile Guardian Transporter ……….. 298 Streamlined and innovative approaches to non-nuclear construction projects ………………………………………………………………………………………. 299 Weapons Activities and the Future Years Nuclear Security Program . 300 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ……………………………………………………… 300 Future nuclear proliferation challenges ………………………………………….. 300 Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response program ……………… 301 Naval Reactors …………………………………………………………………………………. 301 Naval Reactors program ………………………………………………………………… 301 Federal Salaries and Expenses ………………………………………………………….. 302 Management and operating contracts for national security labora-tories …………………………………………………………………………………………. 302 Security clearance investigations for the nuclear security enterprise .. 302 Environmental and Other Defense Activities ………………………………………… 303 Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 303 Defense Environmental Cleanup ……………………………………………………….. 303 Briefings on vapor events at Hanford Site ………………………………………. 303 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 304 Subtitle A—National Security Programs and Authorizations …………………. 304 Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration …………………… 304 Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup …………………………………. 304 Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ……………………………………………… 304 Section 3104—Nuclear Energy ………………………………………………………….. 304 Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ……….. 304 Section 3111—Security Clearance for Dual Nationals Employed by Na-tional Nuclear Security Agency ………………………………………………………. 304 Section 3112—Department of Energy Counterintelligence Polygraph Program ………………………………………………………………………………………… 304 Section 3113—Extension of Enhanced Procurement Authority to Man-age Supply Chain Risk …………………………………………………………………… 304 Section 3114—Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons ……………………………………….. 305 Section 3115—Use of Funds for Construction and Project Support Ac-tivities Relating to MOX Facility ……………………………………………………. 305 Section 3116—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Programs in Russian Federation ……………………………………………………………………….. 305 Section 3117—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Research and Development of Advanced Naval Nuclear Fuel System Based on Low- Enriched Uranium ………………………………………………………………………… 305 Section 3118—Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating to Submis-sion of Annual Reports on Unfunded Priorities ……………………………….. 306 Subtitle C—Reports ……………………………………………………………………………… 306 Section 3121—Notification Regarding Release of Contamination at Hanford Site …………………………………………………………………………………. 306 Subtitle D—Other Matters …………………………………………………………………… 306 Section 3131—Inclusion of Capital Assets Acquisition Projects in Activi-ties by Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation …………. 306 Section 3132—Whistleblower Protections …………………………………………… 306 TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD …………. 307 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 307 Section 3201—Authorization ……………………………………………………………… 307 TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ……………………………………. 307 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 307 Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ………………………………….. 307 TITLE XXXV—MARITIME MATTERS ……………………………………………………….. 307 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ……………………………………………………………. 307 Maritime Security Program ………………………………………………………………. 307 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ………………………………………………………………….. 308 Subtitle A—Maritime Administration …………………………………………………… 308 Section 3501—Authorization of the Maritime Administration …………….. 308 Section 3502—Compliance by Ready Reserve Fleet Vessels with SOLAS Lifeboats and Fire Suppression Requirements ………………………………… 308 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXVII Section 3503—Maritime Administration National Security Multi-Mis-sion Vessel Program ………………………………………………………………………. 308 Section 3504—Permanent Authority of Secretary of Transportation to Issue Vessel War Risk Insurance ……………………………………………………. 308 Section 3505—Use of State Maritime Academy Training Vessels ………… 308 Subtitle B—Coast Guard ……………………………………………………………………… 309 Section 3521—Alignment with Department of Defense and Sea Services Authorities ……………………………………………………………………………………. 309 Section 3522—Preliminary Development and Demonstration ……………… 309 Section 3523—Contract Termination …………………………………………………. 309 Section 3524—Reimbursement for Travel Expenses …………………………… 309 Section 3525—Capital Investment Plan …………………………………………….. 310 Section 3526—Major Acquisition Program Risk Assessment ……………….. 310 Section 3527—Marine Safety Implementation Status …………………………. 310 Section 3528—Retirement of Vice Commandant …………………………………. 310 Section 3529—Large Commercial Yacht Code ……………………………………. 310 Subtitle C—Coast Guard and Shipping Technical Corrections ……………….. 311 Chapter 1—Coast Guard …………………………………………………………………….. 311 Section 3531—Commandant Defined …………………………………………………. 311 Section 3532—Training Course on Workings of Congress …………………… 311 Section 3533—Miscellaneous …………………………………………………………….. 311 Section 3534—Department of Defense Consultation …………………………… 311 Section 3535—Repeal ……………………………………………………………………….. 311 Section 3536—Mission Need Statement …………………………………………….. 311 Section 3537—Continuation on Active Duty ………………………………………. 311 Section 3538—System Acquisition Authorization ……………………………….. 312 Section 3539—Inventory of Real Property ………………………………………….. 312 Chapter 2—Maritime Transportation ………………………………………………….. 312 Section 3541—Definitions …………………………………………………………………. 312 Section 3542—Authority to Exempt Vessels ………………………………………. 312 Section 3543—Passenger Vessels ………………………………………………………. 312 Section 3544—Tank Vessels ………………………………………………………………. 312 Section 3545—Grounds for Denial or Revocation ……………………………….. 313 Section 3546—Miscellaneous Corrections to Title 46, U.S.C. ………………. 313 Section 3547—Miscellaneous Corrections to Oil Pollution Act of 1990 …. 313 Section 3548—Miscellaneous Corrections …………………………………………… 313 DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES …………………………………………………………….. 313 Section 4001—Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables ………………. 313 Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year 2019 …….. 314 National Defense Budget Authority Implication …………………………………. 320 TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT …………………………………………………………………… 322 Section 4101—Procurement ………………………………………………………………. 322 Section 4102—Procurement for Overseas Contingency Operations ……… 368 TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ….. 384 Section 4201—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ……………… 384 Section 4202—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for Over-seas Contingency Operations …………………………………………………………. 423 TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ……………………………………. 427 Section 4301—Operation and Maintenance ………………………………………… 427 Section 4302—Operation and Maintenance for Overseas Contingency Operations …………………………………………………………………………………….. 448 TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL …………………………………………………….. 459 Section 4401—Military Personnel ……………………………………………………… 459 Section 4402—Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency Opera-tions ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 459 TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS …………………………………………………. 460 Section 4501—Other Authorizations ………………………………………………….. 460 Section 4502—Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency Opera-tions ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 464 TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ………………………………………………. 465 Section 4601—Military Construction …………………………………………………. 465 Section 4602—Military Construction for Overseas Contingency Opera-tions ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 478 TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PRO-GRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 480 Section 4701—Department of Energy National Security Programs ……… 480 VerDate Sep 11 2014 13:51 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 6646 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

PageXXVIII Department of Defense Authorization Request …………………………………………….. 493 Communications from Other Committees ……………………………………………………. 495 Congressional Budget Office Estimate …………………………………………………………. 508 Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act …………………………………. 509 Committee Cost Estimate …………………………………………………………………………… 509 Advisory of Earmarks …………………………………………………………………………………. 509 Oversight Findings …………………………………………………………………………………….. 509 General Performance Goals and Objectives …………………………………………………. 510 Statement of Federal Mandates ………………………………………………………………….. 510 Federal Advisory Committee Statement ………………………………………………………. 510 Applicability to the Legislative Branch ……………………………………………………….. 511 Duplication of Federal Programs …………………………………………………………………. 511 Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings …………………………………………………………… 511 Committee Votes ………………………………………………………………………………………… 511 Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ………………………………. 530 Additional Views ………………………………………………………………………………………… 532 Dissenting Views ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 535

115–676 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 MAY15, 2018.

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. THORNBERRY, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 5515] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5515) 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, having considered the same, re-ports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. The amendments are as follows: The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported bill. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION The bill would: (1) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) authorize for fiscal year 2019 the personnel strength for each Active Duty component of the military departments, and the per-2 sonnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Compo-nent of the Armed Forces; (4) modify various elements of com-pensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military con-struction and family housing; (6) authorize appropriations for Over-seas Contingency Operations; (7) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for the Department of Energy national security pro-grams; and (8) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for the Maritime Administration. RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, is a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress the power to provide for the common defense, to raise and support an Army, to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives provides the House Committee on Armed Services with jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally and over the military application of nuclear energy. The committee bill includes findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities, conducted through hearings, briefings, and roundtable discussions with Department of Defense and De-partment of Energy civilian and military officials, intelligence ana-lysts, outside experts, and industry representatives, and it is in-formed by institutional experience. The committee believes that America’s military faces strategic challenges, including the re-emergence of strategic competitors such as the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China; threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and those posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups. H.R. 5515 adheres to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, and it provides the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy with im-portant policy authorities to speed decision making and improve agility, while restoring readiness and increasing capabilities and capacities. National Defense Strategy H.R. 5515 builds on the National Defense Strategy’s recognition of long-term strategic competition. It empowers the Under Sec-retary of Defense for Policy to develop, implement, and integrate Department of Defense activities across all geographic regions and military functions and domains, and to lead the integration of De-partment of Defense activities across the interagency of the Federal Government. With respect to Russia, the bill maintains the long-standing pro-hibition of military-to-military cooperation with Russia; it main-tains the prohibition of U.S. Government recognition of the illegal occupation of Crimea; it funds the President’s request of $250.0 million for assistance to Ukraine, including for lethal defensive items; and, it funds the President’s request for $6.3 billion for the European Defense Initiative (EDI) to further reinforce the U.S.

3 presence in Europe, and it moves the EDI-request for the Army Pre-positioned Stock United Set to the base budget. With respect to the whole-of-society plans of the Chinese Com-munity Party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the bill di-rects the creation of a whole-of-government strategy to confront these plans; it improves security cooperation to counter the PRC’s rising influence in Africa, Southeast Asia, and other regions; and, it improves Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities by expanding joint training, foreign military sales, the use of security cooperation au-thorities, and senior-level military-to-military engagement initia-tives. H.R. 5515 also continues the committee’s efforts to reorganize the U.S. Government’s efforts with respect to malign foreign influ-ence operations and campaigns by directing the President to des-ignate an official on the staff of the National Security Council to coordinate a whole-of-government response to these operations and campaigns. Impacts on Military Preparedness The committee is particularly concerned by the state of military readiness. In 2017, nearly four times as many members of the mili-tary died in training accidents as were killed in combat. In all, 21 service members died in combat while 80 died as a result of non- combat, training-related accidents. This spring alone, 25 were killed in military aviation mishaps. In 2017, there were a total of 60 Class-A aviation mishaps across the services. These mishaps are not limited to military aviation. This past summer, the Navy lost 17 Sailors in separate collisions involving the USS John S. McCain and the USS Fitzgerald. H.R. 5515 makes it a top priority of the Department of Defense to increase training of the Joint Force to promote readiness. The funding will allow the Army to conduct 20 Combat Training Center rotations in fiscal year 2019, including 4 rotations for the Army National Guard, doubling the number of Brigade Combat Teams sent to the Center. It will authorize funding for the Army to hold two Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB) culminating training events a year, enhancing the Army’s combat capability and capac-ity. The funding in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fis-cal Year 2019 enables the Marine Corps to continue maximizing the capacity of their full-spectrum collective training exercises to help restore the capability of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. H.R. 5515 includes increased funding for equipment maintenance, spare parts, and training to rebuild readiness for ships, aircraft squadrons, and ground units. The proposal fully supports the President’s budget request of $2.8 billion for the procurement of spare airplane parts for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. And it also provides $21.8 bil-lion for equipment maintenance and $3.7 billion for spare parts; this represents an increase of $927.9 million over the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus. H.R. 5515 also takes specific steps to restore and rebuild the readiness of the U.S. Navy. It directs the Navy to provide clear chains of command for operations, for building readiness, and for shipyard maintenance. It would limit the time a Navy vessel is for-ward deployed to more than 10 years, and it would increase the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

4 number of Navy vessels authorized for construction. It accelerates construction of the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier, authorizes two additional Littoral Combat Ships, and supports two additional Vir-ginia-class attack submarines in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Reforming the Department of Defense: Promoting Efficiency, Effec-tiveness, and Agility The FY16, FY17 and FY18 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) included several reforms to the Department of Defense, including reforms to the Department’s acquisition processes and to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. H.R. 5515 focuses on the defense agencies and field activities (DAFAs) that are not part of a military service and do not report directly to the Secretary of Defense. It empowers the newly-created Department of Defense Chief Management Officer (CMO) to elimi-nate redundancy and cross enterprise activities (e.g., logistics, civil-ian resource management, real property management, and services contracting). It also requires the CMO to review and assess the function of each DAFA to validate its usefulness to the Joint Force or to recommend its elimination or transformation. HEARINGS Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 results from posture and budget-related hearings that began on February 14, 2018, and that were com-pleted on April 19, 2018. The full committee conducted 9 hearings and the 6 subcommittees conducted a total of 23 sessions during this time period. Additionally, over the past year, the committee conducted numerous policy and program oversight hearings, includ-ing hearings in support of its reform initiatives, to inform its devel-opment of the legislative proposals contained in this Act. COMMITTEE POSITION On May 9, 2018, the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 5515. The committee ordered the bill H.R. 5515, as amended, favorably reported to the House of Rep-resentatives by a recorded vote of 60–1, a quorum being present. EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute during the consideration of H.R. 5515. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS The bill does not provide budget authority. This bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriations acts will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives to adhere to the rec-ommendations as issued by the Committee on the Budget as it re-lates to the jurisdiction of this committee. The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance; military personnel; work-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

5 ing capital funds; and military construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the Armed Forces Retirement Home, De-partment of Energy National Security Programs, the Naval Petro-leum Reserve, and the Maritime Administration. Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Depart-ment of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization of specific dollar amounts for military personnel. SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL The President requested discretionary budget authority of $708.1 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the committee for fis-cal year 2019. Of this amount, $617.1 billion was requested for ‘‘base’’ Department of Defense programs, $69.0 billion was re-quested for Overseas Contingency Operations requirements cov-ering the entire fiscal year, $21.8 billion was requested for Depart-ment of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nu-clear Facilities Safety Board, and $0.2 billion was requested for de-fense-related activities associated with the Maritime Administra-tion. The committee recommends an overall discretionary authoriza-tion of $708.1 billion in fiscal year 2019. The committee authoriza-tion is a $16.0 billion increase above the levels provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report summarizes the committee’s recommended discre-tionary authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2019 and compares these amounts to the President’s request. BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION The President’s total request for the national defense budget function (050) in fiscal year 2019 is $725.5 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to funding for pro-grams addressed in this bill, the total 050 request includes discre-tionary funding for national defense programs not in the commit-tee’s jurisdiction, discretionary funding for programs that do not re-quire additional authorization in fiscal year 2019, and mandatory programs. The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report details changes to the budget request for all as-pects of the national defense budget function. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

6 DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE I—PROCUREMENT AIRCRAFTPROCUREMENT, ARMYItems of Special Interest Apache attack helicopters The committee understands the Army’s current aviation mod-ernization and equipping strategy that resulted from the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative currently resources the Army Na-tional Guard (ARNG) to retain 4 attack reconnaissance battalions for a total of 72 AH–64 Apache attack helicopters. The committee notes that these ARNG attack reconnaissance battalions would be equipped with 18 AH–64 attack helicopters as compared to the Ac-tive Component battalions that are equipped with 24 AH–64 attack helicopters. The committee is aware the ARNG is no longer solely the strategic reserve of the past, but also an operational force, and provides significant capability through rotational support to com-batant commanders. The committee believes that given the current global threat environment, reliance on ARNG capabilities is ex-pected to increase. Therefore, the committee believes that all 4 ARNG attack recon-naissance battalions should be equipped with 24 AH–64 attack hel-icopters, the same as Active Component battalions, in order to im-prove overall readiness and compatibility between the ARNG and Active Component. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to plan, program, and budget for 24 additional AH–64 attack helicopters to address ARNG requirements across the Future Years Defense Program. Light utility helicopter The budget request included $6.4 million for utility helicopter modifications to the UH–60 Black Hawk and the UH–72A Lakota helicopters, but contained no funding for UH–72A life-cycle sustainment and product improvements. The UH–72A Lakota heli-copter provides general aviation support for aviation units in the Active and Reserve Components. The committee supports the re-quirement to conduct mid-life sustainment and product improve-ment activities for the UH–72A, and includes funding to conduct the analysis, engineering, certification, and risk reduction activities necessary to update the UH–72A Life Cycle Support Plan. The committee also recognizes that the UH–72A was initially fielded without aircraft survivability equipment, which could potentially limit the Active Component and Army National Guard’s utilization of the UH–72A platform. As reflected in Division D of this Act, the committee recommends additional funding for the National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account (NGREA). The com-mittee understands that while no requirements have been formally identified for UH–72A Lakota ballistic armor or aircraft surviv-ability equipment by the National Guard Bureau, should a require-ment be put forth, the committee expects the Army National Guard to utilize NGREA funds. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

7 The committee recommends $16.4 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in utility helicopter modifications for UH–72A life-cycle sustainment and product improvements. Further, the committee di-rects the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 8, 2019, on the Army’s long-term sustainment strategy for the UH–72A Lakota helicopter fleet. Report on efforts to reduce operational and maintenance costs for CH–47 The committee is aware the Army has recently validated a new specification for an improved thermal-acoustic blanket for CH–47 helicopters, which does not appear to be reflected in the logistics and material databases and support system. By greatly improving capabilities over current blankets, including dry/wet weight, air permeability, thermal and acoustic insulation, and durability the Army has developed a cost-effective way to significantly reduce operational and maintenance costs for the heavy lift fleet. The com-mittee commends the Army for this effort, and directs the Sec-retary of the Army to provide a briefing to the Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate no later than September 28, 2018 detailing plans to outfit all current and future CH–47s with this enhanced capability and the status of the material and logistics supply chain’s incorporation of this new spec-ification. The briefing should include a schedule for fielding blan-kets for the current fleet and the status of inserting the new speci-fication into CH–47 block II production. Unmanned aerial system units for Army National Guard The committee understands the Army’s current fielding plan for MQ–1C Gray Eagle units includes Active Duty combat aviation bri-gades and intelligence units, and that at present no systems are planned for fielding to the Army National Guard. However, the committee notes that there are many missions involving military support to civilian authorities for which the MQ–1C Gray Eagle could contribute, including wildfire response, search and rescue, border security, counter-narcotics, and communications support during emergencies. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on the potential utility, feasi-bility, and cost of establishing MQ–1C Gray Eagle units in the Army National Guard. The briefing shall include, at a minimum, a detailed analysis of the resources needed to create a minimum of two Gray Eagle companies in the Army National Guard, and an analysis of how such units could provide support to civilian au-thorities for domestic emergencies. MISSILEPROCUREMENT, ARMYItems of Special Interest Stinger missile modernization program The committee supports the Army’s accelerated strategy to re-store capacity and capability in Short-Range Air Defense (SHORAD) teams, to include reconstituting man-portable air de-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

8 fense teams using Stinger missiles to counter current and emerging threats from fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, and un-manned air systems (UAS). However, the committee has significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the Army’s Stinger missile in-ventory, as well as the resiliency of the associated industrial base that produces key components, including those required for the Stinger missile seeker. The committee recognizes the requirement for Stinger missiles will likely increase as a result of increased demand for SHORAD capability. The Army’s current acquisition strategy does not include any new production of Stinger missiles, and instead implements a service life extension program (SLEP) for existing Stinger missiles. The committee notes that the last new Stinger missile was pro-duced in 2001, and that missiles expire annually due to attrition and decay. While the Stinger SLEP program does extend the mis-sile life by 10 years and improves counter-UAS capability by add-ing a proximity fuze, the current SLEP program will not mitigate the decline in Stinger missile inventory. Further, the Stinger SLEP program does not address the capability of the Stinger guidance section, electronics or seeker. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on the Stinger Modernization Program. The briefing should address the Army’s strategy to mitigate the decline of the Stinger missile inventory, to include required funding, maintenance of the Stinger industrial base, and modernization of the Stinger program in the out-years. PROCUREMENT OFWEAPONS ANDTRACKEDCOMBATVEHICLES, ARMYItems of Special Interest Armored brigade combat team modernization In the committee report accompanying the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (H. Rept. 115–200), the com-mittee expressed concerns about the stability of armored brigade combat team (ABCT) modernization funding in fiscal year 2018 and beyond, noting that the Army was currently modernizing one ABCT every 2 years at best. Furthermore, in H. Rept. 115–200 the committee encouraged the Army to fully modernize at least one ABCT per year, and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) authorized the additional funding necessary to modernize one complete ABCT. The com-mittee is encouraged by the Army’s increased investment for ABCT modernization in the budget request. Given this increased investment for ABCT modernization, the committee believes the Army should examine the cost benefits of using multiyear procurement contracts for combat vehicle plat-forms comprising ABCTs. However, the committee is also aware the Army has concerns over the loss of fiscal flexibility that occurs when it commits to a multiyear contract. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on the results of a cost-benefit analysis com-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

9 paring a traditional 5-year multiyear contract for ABCT platforms with an alternative 3-year multiyear contract with 2 successive sin-gle-year options. In addition, the committee is concerned that the Army’s current nomenclature for a critical part of the ABCT, the M1 Abrams tank, has become so complicated that it fails to communicate the impor-tance of the Army’s planned upgrades for the tank. Specifically, the committee is concerned that Army’s use of ‘‘M1A1 situational awareness,’’ ‘‘M1A2 system enhancement program version 3,’’ and ‘‘M1A2 system enhancement program version 4’’ to refer to Army upgrade programs for the M1 Abrams tank fails to clearly and con-cisely convey the significant capability upgrades resident in these efforts. The committee encourages the Army to change, as soon as possible, to clearer M1 Abrams upgrade program descriptions such as the ‘‘M1A3’’ and ‘‘M1A4’’ to more efficiently describe these pro-grams. The committee believes that such a change does not require any additional testing or funding. M240 medium machine gun modernization The committee is concerned the Army may be assuming too much risk in the small arms industrial base with respect to the family of M240 medium machine guns. Current funding profiles could lead to a potential production line shutdown. The shutdown of existing production lines would create significant operational im-pacts if requirements increase. The committee notes that the budg-et 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 on Armed Services of the House of Rep-resentatives 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 in-ventory either with newer M240 models or an entirely new system; (3) how the Army will address increased requirements caused by increases 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 interaction and communication with the origi-nal equipment manufacturer regarding capacity challenges and minimum sustaining production rates. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide an advisability and feasibility study to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services by September 28, 2018, on transitioning the existing fleet of M240B medium machine guns to the lighter- weight M240L configuration. This assessment shall include the es-timated costs associated with this transition and using current in-ventories of M240Bs. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

10 M3E1 Carl Gustaf weapon system The committee understands the M3E1 Carl Gustaf is the Army’s current platform for addressing the Army’s multi-role anti-armor anti-personnel weapon system requirement. The committee notes that the Army is implementing a directed requirement signed in January 2017 to expand the fielding of lightweight Carl Gustaf sys-tems to infantry and scout platoons in its infantry brigade combat teams and Stryker brigade combat teams. The committee notes, however, that the Army does not have plans or funding for a precision-guided round for the Carl Gustaf that will provide pinpoint, multitarget engagement capability at substantially extended ranges. The committee is aware of an emerging U.S. Special Operations Command requirement for a Guided Carl Gustaf Munition and encourages the Army to accel-erate development and production of a precision-guided round for the Carl Gustaf weapon system. Paladin Integrated Management The base budget request included $351.8 million for 30 M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) self-propelled howitzers. The M109A7 PIM program modernizes the legacy M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer and M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle. The committee has worked closely with the Army to stabilize pro-duction for combat vehicle programs and armored brigade combat team modernization in order to maintain overmatch against near- peer and peer strategic competitors. As such, the committee is con-cerned that the Army’s budget request for the Paladin Integrated Management program does not adequately fund the current pro-duction contract. The committee notes that the Army has decreased planned PIM funding in fiscal year 2019 by approximately $237.0 million and that this funding decrease has resulted in a loss of 24 vehicle sets below the original 60 sets authorized under the con-tract. Furthermore, the committee understands the Army plans to increase production back to 60 sets per year beginning in fiscal year 2020. The committee believes this variance from planned and contracted funding amounts could cause significant disruptions to the PIM supply chain. The committee encourages the Army to maintain funding for PIM consistent with the 60 vehicles sets per year included in its current production contract. Therefore, the committee recommends $426.8 million, an in-crease of $75.0 million, to increase production for the M109A7 PIM program. Stryker upgrades The budget request contained $21.9 million for the procurement of three conversions of Stryker flat-bottom hull vehicles to the Dou-ble V–Hull (DVH) configuration with Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 1 upgrades resulting in a Stryker DVHA1 vehicle to be field-ed in Stryker brigade combat teams (SBCTs). The budget request also contained $287.5 million for Stryker vehicle modifications to resolve reliability, lethality, safety, operational, and performance degradation issues in Stryker vehicles. The committee understands the Stryker DVHA1 ECP addresses mobility and electrical power degradation issues resulting from11 over 10 years supporting overseas contingency combat operations, as well as other improvements in network capability intended to provide the platform for future evolution of the fleet. The com-mittee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army just recently com-pleted an assessment of Stryker program priorities and directed that all six remaining SBCTs convert to the Stryker DVHA1 con-figuration. The committee supports this directed requirement, and believes the conversion would provide SBCTs with a more surviv-able vehicle, as well as regain the mobility and automotive per-formance lost due to the additional weight of the existing surviv-ability upgrades. To facilitate and support this effort in fiscal year 2019, the committee notes the Army has requested realignment of $149.3 million from the Stryker modification budget request, and also has identified new unfunded requirements for Stryker up-grades. The committee recommends an additional $188.8 million to accel-erate Stryker DVHA1 upgrades for SBCTs. The committee also rec-ommends the realignment of $149.3 million from the Stryker modi-fication budget request for Stryker DVHA1 upgrades. The com-mittee recommends a total of $360.0 million, a total increase of $337.3 million, for Stryker DVHA1 upgrades. PROCUREMENT OFAMMUNITION, ARMYItems of Special Interest M58 MICLIC The committee has continuing interest in the Department of De-fense’s plans to modify and upgrade the M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC). This antiquated system has been employed by the United States Marine Corps and U.S. Army since the Vietnam- era. Since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism, enemy mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been used to counter U.S. ground mobility assets. The past 17 years of conflict, coupled with recent trends indicate that these types of defensive tactics and techniques will be used in future engagements. While the enemy continues to adapt, the M58 MICLIC costs $83.6K per system and has not seen any significant upgrade in capability since its introduction. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2019, on the Army’s plan for upgrading or replacing the M58 MICLIC. The briefing should include: (1) A description of current MICLIC employment statistics and mission requirements (2) An overview of a plan and timeline to upgrade the current system or field a newer variant (3) The costs associated with the research, development, test, and evaluation of a new system (4) Any employment or effectiveness shortfalls with the current M58 system.

12 OTHERPROCUREMENT, ARMYItems of Special Interest CREW electronic counter-measure systems The budget request contained $42.7 million for the procurement of counter radio controlled improvised explosive devices (RCIED) electronics warfare (CREW) family of electronic counter measure (ECM) systems to protect dismounted soldiers, fixed-sites, and tac-tical and combat vehicles. The committee supports this program and notes that the United States Marine Corps and United States Special Operations Command are currently procuring the same family of systems. The committee is aware that the Army has two Program Executive Offices (PEOs) responsible for developing and procuring ground-based mounted and dismounted CREW and ECM systems. The committee notes that PEO Ammunition procures these systems specifically for Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units and that PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sen-sors (IEW&S) for all other Army organizational units. The com-mittee needs to be assured that these PEOs are coordinating effec-tively on materiel solutions and are engaged in mutually sup-porting activities regarding CREW ECM systems. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by August 30, 2018, on the Army’s efforts to coordinate and synchronize the re-quirements process, rapid acquisition efforts, and programs of record of PEO IEW&S and PEO Ammunition related to CREW ECM systems. Enhanced rapid airfield construction capability The budget request included $0.9 million for enhanced rapid air-field construction capability (ERACC) equipment. The committee understands ERACC equipment provides the joint commander with the capability enhancement to rapidly construct new airfields and runways, and to upgrade existing facilities to meet joint task force requests. The committee notes this request specifically provides for the procurement, installation, and fielding of equipment in support of ERACC Type II mission requirements. The committee understands ERACC Type II mission equipment consists of a grade control system that includes a Global Posi-tioning System (GPS) and laser leveling system that is installed on a dozer, grader, scraper and Deployable Universal Combat Earth-mover. The committee notes the laser leveling systems allow for precision survey planning with three-dimensional software. The committee understands this system would significantly reduce operational time required for heavy construction missions, and re-sult in fewer machines required to complete missions, as well as fuel savings. The committee believes there are emerging require-ments for additional ERACC Type II capability. The committee recommends $8.4 million, an increase of $7.5 mil-lion, to accelerate the competitive modernization of ERACC equip-ment.

13 Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle sustainment The committee commends the military services for retaining the most capable mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles to meet military operational and training needs, as well as standard-izing the fleet to improve long-term sustainment. The committee notes the Army has an enduring requirement of 8,222 MRAP vehi-cles, and that MRAP vehicles continue to be a critical high demand force protection asset for overseas contingency operations in the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility. The committee also notes that since the military services finalized the enduring re-quirements for MRAP vehicles, the military services face an in-creasingly complex and significantly worse global threat environ-ment. In this environment, the committee believes demand for MRAP vehicles could increase. Additionally, MRAP vehicles may be need-ed to fulfill emerging requirements that may not have been fully considered as part of the Army’s long-term tactical wheeled vehicle modernization strategy, such as requirements for key leader or command and control vehicles. The committee notes with concern that the Army’s budget request contained no funding for MRAP ve-hicle modifications or improvements for the existing inventory of MRAP vehicles. The committee encourages the Army to take nec-essary steps to ensure the MRAP vehicle industrial base remains viable. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in coordination with the Sec-retary of the Army, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 14, 2018, that details the Army’s long-term strategy for planning, programming, and budgeting for long-term sustainment, research and development, and procure-ment of MRAP vehicle platforms. Tactical Communication and Protective Systems (TCAPS) author-ization The House Armed Services Committee is aware that service members are routinely exposed to extreme loud noises that can damage their hearing. The committee further notes that tech-nologies are available that integrate advanced hearing protection into tactical radio headsets, significantly improving communica-tions ability as well as overall situational awareness. The com-mittee is concerned, however, that disparity in the procurement and fielding schedules of these components is leading to inefficien-cies that unnecessarily undermine readiness and could jeopardize the long-term health of service members. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Director of the Soldier Lethality Cross-Func-tional Team pilot as well as the appropriate program executive of-fices, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Serv-ices by September 1, 2018 on potential courses of action to mitigate the aforementioned disparity. Tactical network modernization The committee understands the Army’s new tactical network modernization strategy is designed to enable the Army to ‘‘fight to-night,’’ while also actively seeking next-generation solutions to stay VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

14 ahead of potential adversaries. The committee notes this strategy would fix the existing programs that are necessary to fulfill the most critical operational shortfalls, while pivoting to a new acquisi-tion methodology that fosters rapid insertion of new technology. In the report required by section 112 of the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), the Army stated that ‘‘the Army will continually evaluate available solutions, including those that may not have originally been designed for military application, using operational units to demonstrate, exper-iment with, and test them in the field. The Army will then ’adapt and buy’ the best of the tested solutions to meet unique military challenges.’’ Consistent with this new tactical network moderniza-tion strategy, the committee expects the Director of the Army’s Network Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence cross-functional team pilot to test and consider readily available, non-developmental tactical communications technologies that de-liver the improved performance in voice, video, and data dissemina-tion at the squad and individual soldier level. Tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base sustainment The committee is aware that the Army’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) projections for the family of medium tactical vehi-cles (FMTVs) and the family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTVs) Re-capitalization program in the budget request are significantly lower than corresponding fiscal year 2018 FYDP projections. The com-mittee is concerned that a drastic, unexpected decrease in FYDP procurement projections for these critical vehicle programs could have significant impacts to the medium and heavy tactical wheeled vehicle defense industrial base. The committee notes with concern that this could put at risk the TWV industrial base’s ability to pro-vide surge capacity in an emergency. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to develop procurement plans for tactical wheeled vehicles and corresponding recapitalization programs that do not place unreasonable pressure on the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base, nor undermine its capacity for surge production. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2018, on the Army’s current acquisition strategy and sustainment strategy for FMTVs and FHTVs. The briefing should also include potential courses of action to minimize impacts to the industrial base, as well as ways to maintain surge capacity across the FYDP. AIRCRAFTPROCUREMENT, NAVYItems of Special Interest Current and future anti-submarine warfare system study Preceding the Navy Department’s MH–60R Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) in Fiscal Year 20, advances in anti-submarine warfare sys-tems manufactured in the U.S. warrant a review. The committee is encouraged by advances in dipping sonar utilizing low frequency detection and beam-forming technologies, allowing multiple bound-ary interactions, and interoperability with shipboard sonars and sonobuoys adding greatly enhanced protection to the carrier battle VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

15 group. Moreover, these advances in technology are derived from U.S. sources, vice foreign technologies. Additionally, the committee is concerned that the current MH– 60R anti-submarine warfare system, Airborne Low Frequency Sonar (ALFS), that serves as the primary ASW sensor in the Car-rier Strike Group, has a component failure rate that has depleted the spares inventory, impacting deployed and nondeployed readi-ness including the ability to support concurrent MH–60R deploy-ments. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the House Armed Services Committee by March 1, 2019 on the current operability and readiness issues of ALFS system and the potential utilization of existing, advanced U.S. tech-nologies to upgrade the MH–60R fleet’s anti-submarine warfare system. Long-range naval carrier aviation The committee notes that section 1067 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) di-rected the Secretary of Defense to provide three independent stud-ies of alternative future fleet platform architectures for the Navy in the 2030 timeframe. The committee further notes that the three studies concur as to the need for an enhanced carrier-based unmanned long-range strike capability beyond current plans and programs. The com-mittee remains concerned that while the MQ–25 program leverages Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike re-quirements justification, the most recent documentation sent to in-dustry did not include precision strike capability as a requirement. The committee believes that the Navy may be unnecessarily ex-cluding a critical capability and precluding future growth in a plat-form that will likely be integrated into the carrier air wing for the next 30 years. Therefore, the committee encourages the Navy to develop an un-manned anti-access penetrating long-range strike capability from the aircraft carrier, in addition to the current focus on the MQ– 25A. MQ–4 The budget request contained $577.8 million for procurement of three MQ–4C unmanned aircraft. The committee understands the MQ–4C will be a forward-deployed, land-based, autonomously oper-ated system that provides a persistent maritime intelligence, sur-veillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability using a multi-sensor mission payload. The MQ–4C’s unique combination of long endur-ance and advanced sensors will support combatant commanders and provide a common operational picture of the maritime environ-ment. The committee supports the budget request of $577.8 million for procurement of three MQ–4C aircraft. However, how, when, and what quantity of MQ–4C aircraft will be integrated into the De-partment of Defense’s ISR Global Force Management Allocation Process (GFMAP) for airborne ISR aircraft is still unclear. There-fore, the committee also directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, to

16 provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than October 15, 2018, that details the strategy and plan to integrate MQ–4C into the CJCS ISR GFMAP process. At a min-imum, the briefing should illustrate the methodology that will be used to determine the quantity of MQ–4C aircraft involved in the process, the scheduling start date, the type of aircraft capability, and the capacity of intelligence discipline capability the MQ–4C will provide to the combatant commanders. Navy Reserve F/A–18 aircraft The committee remains concerned about the health and readi-ness of the Navy Reserve combat air fleet. The committee is aware that the Navy Reserve tactical aviation squadrons provide critical adversary support and strike fighter weapons training to Active Duty forces, and must maintain a high mobilization readiness level as the sole strategic reserve available to the Department of the Navy. The committee understands that the Navy Reserve currently operates 33 legacy F/A–18A+ aircraft that are currently shared be-tween two squadrons. The committee notes that with an average airframe age of 31 years and aircraft systems that are no longer compatible with today’s carrier air wing, the Navy Reserve aircraft are increasingly less capable than the F/A–18E/F Super Hornet air-craft used by the Navy’s Active Duty fleet. The committee believes that this situation could affect the ability of the two Navy Reserve squadrons to meet requirements for advanced strike employment, and the capability to simulate current advanced threat aircraft. The committee also believes that the legacy F/A–18A+ aircraft needs to be recapitalized with next-generation capability in order to provide realistic threat-representative training for naval aviators and to maintain operational readiness that provides a relevant and deployable reserve to the Active Duty air wings. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the Chief of the Navy Reserve, to provide a brief-ing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than De-cember 4, 2018, on its updated plans to recapitalize the Navy Re-serve combat air fleet. WEAPONSPROCUREMENT, NAVYItems of Special Interest Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance The committee continues to support development of the Ad-vanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO), a guided 57 mm projectile, to counter the growing threats posed by small boat swarms, unmanned aerial systems, and other emerging threats. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by Au-gust 30, 2018, on accelerating development of ALaMO’s capabilities to address threats posed by unmanned aerial systems. The briefing should also include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of the cur-rent funding profile of this program across the Future Years De-fense Program, as well as potential courses of action to accelerate or streamline the current program strategy. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

17 SHIPBUILDING ANDCONVERSION, NAVYItems of Special Interest Frigate The committee is aware that the Navy awarded five contracts for conceptual design for its new guided missile frigate program, FFG(X), with multiple shipbuilders currently developing their re-spective designs to compete for a detail design and construction contract award planned for September 2020. This pursuit rep-resents a significant shift from the Navy’s previous plans to award a contract in fiscal year 2018 for a frigate derived from minor modi-fications to a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design. The FFG(X) pro-gram intends to leverage the proposed capabilities of the previous frigate plans and expand upon them to create a more lethal and survivable ship to meet the Small Surface Combatant (SSC) re-quirement. Toward that end, the committee encourages the Sec-retary of the Navy to emphasize concepts of risk reduction, com-monality with existing platform equipment, and reduced acquisi-tion and life cycle and sustainment costs to provide a best value so-lution for this critical platform. FFG(X) represents a significant in-vestment, with the Navy’s fiscal year 2019 long-range shipbuilding plan estimating over $5.5 billion through fiscal year 2023 for the first 6 frigates, and a total of 20 frigates planned through fiscal year 2030. Since 2005, the Comptroller General of the United States has re-ported extensively on the LCS program, the predecessor small sur-face combatant. Considering the lessons learned during the LCS program, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States conduct a review of the FFG(X) program and provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019. The report shall include, at a minimum, analysis on the following: (1) conceptual design plans and activities to support the advance-ment of multiple ship designs for a full and open competition in fis-cal year 2020; (2) activities to establish requirements and system specifications, and to develop the program’s overall acquisition approach, includ-ing cost and schedule estimates, as well as a test strategy; and (3) plans for the detail design and construction award contract, to include a review of the implications of a potential request by the Navy for a block buy award. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier service life extension In December 2016, the Secretary of the Navy determined that a 355-ship Navy is required to support force structure demands. A part of this force structure requirement is a power projection re-quirement of 12 aircraft carriers. With the delivery of the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) in 2023, the Navy will reach their 12 aircraft carrier goal but will quickly lose this overall capacity with the programmed retirement of USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in fiscal year 2023. The committee believes that there are several options to retain required aircraft carrier force structure to include accelerating con-struction of the Ford-class carriers. Additionally, the committee be-lieves that service life extension options may be available for USS VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

18 Nimitz. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on options that exist to extend the service life of USS Nimitz, to include the extension of major components. Addi-tionally, such a briefing should include cost estimates and major modernization components. OTHERPROCUREMENT, NAVYItems of Special Interest Arleigh Burke-class destroyer radar backfit The committee notes that Navy witnesses have provided testi-mony to the committee and indicated their recommendation to ex-tend the service life of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for 45 years. Navy notes that expansion of the service life will allow Navy to reach the 355-ship Navy by 2036 or 2037. The committee sup-ports retention of destroyers beyond their current service life but notes that such support is contingent on providing a comprehensive modernization plan for the entirety of the in-service destroyers. As part of this overall modernization of the destroyer fleet, the com-mittee believes that it is essential the Navy develop a next genera-tion maritime radar system for in service Arleigh Burke-class de-stroyers to address existing and emerging gaps in integrated air and missile defense. The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy is still developing its strategy for how to pursue this capability. The committee further recognizes that the recent deci-sion to perform a class wide service life extension program (SLEP) on all in service destroyers could have an impact on the timing of a radar backfit program. The committee believes that it would be premature to make any decisions regarding specific radars until the Secretary has completed a comprehensive threat and capabili-ties based assessment of what will be required for a new radar for in service destroyers. Therefore, the committee directs the Sec-retary of the Navy to brief the House Armed Services Committee on the details of their DDG–51 radar backfit strategy once an over-all modernization strategy has been completed. MH–60R dipping sonar upgrades The committee notes numerous advancements in anti-submarine warfare systems preceding the Department of the Navy’s MH–60R Mid-Life Upgrade in fiscal years 2020 through 2023. Specifically, the committee is encouraged by advances in dipping sonar utilizing low frequency detection and beam-forming technologies, allowing multiple boundary interaction and interoperability with shipboard sonars and sonobuoys to expand the lethality of Navy forces. The committee is concerned that the current MH–60R anti-submarine warfare system, the airborne low frequency sonar that serves as the primary anti-submarine warfare sensor in the carrier strike group, has a high component failure rate. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2019, on the potential use of existing advanced tech-nologies to upgrade the MH–60R fleet. If available manufactured systems meet or exceed current legacy technologies reliability or ca-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

19 pability, then the Department of the Navy is encouraged to conduct a full and open competition for MH–60R dipping sonar upgrades, repairs, and replacements as part of the fleet sustainment of these capabilities. SPY–6 inherent capabilities The committee is aware that next generation AN/SPY–6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radars will soon be entering the fleet. As the SPY–6 family of radars begin to deploy and better protect our serv-ice members and allies, the committee is also aware that capabili-ties beyond those designed for nominal radar operations may exist. To provide the committee a better understanding of the full range of capabilities resident in SPY–6(V) radar modular assembly (RMA) based radars, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee on a plan that will exploit the inherent capabilities of SPY–6(V) within 90 days from the enactment of this Act. Surface ship torpedo defense The evolving challenges and tensions in the Indo-Asia-Pacific re-gion underscore the ongoing requirement for a surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) capability for the Navy’s high-value units. The com-mittee understands that the Chief of Naval Operations highlighted this requirement in a 2010 urgent operational need statement and that since that time, potential regional adversaries have continued to improve their submarine and torpedo capabilities. Despite this increasing threat to Navy carrier strike groups and surface plat-forms, and the continued SSTD testing success and program matu-ration, the budget request and the Future Years Defense Program inadequately support currently deployed systems and cancel fur-ther development of this SSTD capability. The committee is concerned that this decision is based on the need to balance several years of inadequate funding resources across a range of priorities and that this budgetary dynamic is forc-ing decisions that put at risk the readiness and security of U.S. naval and Marine forces without adequate alternative plans to mitigate that threat. As raised in previous communications with Navy officials, the committee also has concerns that the Navy has distributed various SSTD program responsibilities among various Navy resource sponsors, which has led to a lack of determined sup-port for efficient program execution and a lack of focused leader-ship. In light of these concerns, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2018, that includes, but is not limited to, the following: an assessment of the current and foreseeable torpedo threats facing high-value units and the Navy’s plan to adequately protect them, a description of the requirements for SSTD, an as-sessment of the development program concerning each of the SSTD capability elements, the plan to consolidate responsibility of the SSTD program, and the plan to manage and sustain currently fielded SSTD systems. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

20 PROCUREMENT, MARINECORPSItems of Special Interest Indoor Simulated Markmanship Trainers The budget request contained $52.0 million for Marine Corps Training Devices. Of this amount, $2.7 million was requested for Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainers (ISMTs). The ISMT system is a three-dimensional simulation-based train-er for indoor use, capable of instructing in basic and advanced marksmanship, shoot/no-shoot judgment, combat marksmanship, and weapons employment tactics. The committee recognizes the value of this training system for remedial and virtual instruction to augment live fire upon simulated targets. The committee notes the ISMT systems are used both within the continental United States (CONUS) and outside CONUS. The committee also recog-nizes the value of this capability in that it would allow for rapid generation of new training scenarios, thus adding new capability quickly and efficiently to meet the training demands resulting from doctrinal and/or mission requirement changes. The committee en-courages the Marine Corps to continue to work with the industrial base to improve and upgrade components for the Training Device portfolio. The committee recommends $2.7 million, the full amount in the budget request, for the ISMT system. Rapid acquisition of Rifle Integrated Controller The committee understands the Marine Corps is currently evalu-ating a rifle accessory control unit (RACU) through a two-phase process that should result in fielding capability improvements in the operational performance and close-combat lethality of indi-vidual marines. The committee understands the RACU will be fully integrated with current Marine Corps weapons and communication devices and will be evaluated for operational utility at the unit level. The committee recognizes the challenges that exist for an in-dividual marine to operate separate situational awareness, commu-nications, target designators, thermal sights, and other battle man-agement devices. The committee notes the RACU system would consolidate these disparate capabilities into one unified capability. The committee is encouraged by the initial feedback regarding the performance of the RACU during the phase 1 evaluation. The com-mittee understands the phase 2 evaluation should conclude by the end of fiscal year 2018. The committee expects the Marine Corps to expeditiously com-plete the phase 2 evaluation and, subject to a successful evaluation, expects the capability to result in a validated requirement. The committee encourages the Commandant of the Marine Corps to consider a rapid acquisition strategy to accelerate the fielding and procurement of the RACU utilizing existing acquisition reform au-thorities. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

21 AIRCRAFTPROCUREMENT, AIRFORCEItems of Special Interest A–10 replacement wings The base budget request contained $98.7 million for A–10 air-craft modifications, of which $79.2 million was included for the A– 10 wing replacement program. The committee notes that increases for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 will enable the Department of the Air Force to begin a second wing replacement program for an addi-tional 110 A–10 replacement wings. The committee continues to believe that sustainment of the 281- aircraft A–10 fleet helps to meet Air Force fighter aircraft capacity requirements. The committee notes that A–10 force structure con-sists of five Air Reserve Component and four Active Duty squad-rons, and that any fewer than nine squadrons will not meet future combatant commander demand for A–10 aircraft. Consequently, subsequent to the test and evaluation of the F–35A and A–10C re-quired by section 134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), the Department should not take any action to reduce the number of A–10 squadrons. Accord-ingly, the committee believes the Department of the Air Force should accelerate the A–10 wing replacement program. The committee recommends $163.7 million in the base budget for A–10 modifications, an increase of $65.0 million for the A–10 wing replacement program. The committee also notes that multiyear contracting strategies have resulted in more efficient and cost effective acquisition pro-grams, and believes such a strategy could also result in cost sav-ings for the A–10 wing replacement program. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than Feb-ruary 15, 2019, on Department of the Air Force plans to utilize a multiyear contracting strategy to procure A–10 replacement wings. Additionally, the committee notes that exercising the option to deliver the remaining 110 wings on the contract that expired in September 2016 could have resulted in cost savings compared to current plans to contract separately for a second wing replacement program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Serv-ices, not later than February 15, 2019, on the cost of the additional 110 A–10 replacement wings using a second contract compared to the cost of exercising the option to procure the 110 A–10 replace-ment wings on the original contract. Air Force enlisted pilot implementation initiatives The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 4, 2019, on the plan to implement the enlisted pilot aircrew requirements of Section 1052 of the FY17 NDAA for the MQ–9 enterprise of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components of the Air Force. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense com-mittees not later than April 1, 2019, on the costs, benefits, and fea-sibility of authorizing enlisted Airmen or Warrant Officers as pi-

22 lots, navigators, or weapon systems operators on all Air Force air-craft or rotorcraft platforms. The report should also assess and ex-plain any policy or guidance impediments that would preclude en-listed Airmen or Warrant Officers from serving as pilots, naviga-tors, or weapon systems operators. B–2 secure communication modernization plan The committee notes that the Air Force released its ‘‘Bomber Vector’’ in conjunction with its fiscal year 2019 President’s budget request which outlines the future of the B–1, B–2, B–52, and B– 21 bomber fleets. According to this document, during development and production of the B–21, the Air Force will sustain the B–2 bomber to assure no gaps in bomber force availability. In addition to availability, the committee is concerned that the B–2 bomber fleet must keep pace with the threat level and have no gaps in ca-pability during the transition. This is critical as competitor nations increasingly field anti-access and area denial weapon systems that impede and degrade the Air Force’s ability to hold any target at risk around the globe. The committee is aware that, as noted in the Department of De-fense fiscal year 2019 budget request, ‘‘modern communications are key enablers for the B–2 in the anti-access/area denial battle-space and directly enhance lethality and force multiplication.’’ The com-mittee is concerned that the Department terminated the Extremely High Frequency Satellite Communications program, which pro-vided two-way, high-bandwidth, secure, survivable, strategic com-munication in anti-access and area denial environments. In its place, the Air Force has chosen to rely on the Common Very-Low- Frequency Receiver (CVR), which is to provide the B–2 with re-ceive-only, secure, survivable communications. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 28, 2019, on the B–2 secure communications mod-ernization plan. This briefing should include the following: (1) the impact of the Air Force’s decision to downgrade B–2 com-munications capabilities on the ability of the B–2 to perform its critical strike missions in anti-access/area denial environments; (2) recommend 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 for the long-range strike family of sys-tems and other Air Force and Joint systems; and (3) provide estimated modernization costs and timelines, and con-sider opportunities to exploit capabilities developed for other pro-grams. C–130H modernization efforts The committee notes that the C–130H aircraft that are flown pri-marily by the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve continue to provide critical tactical airlift capabilities and will continue to support this mission for years to come. The committee further notes that in order to sustain mission capability and effectiveness, various sustainment and improvement initiatives are currently un-derway. The committee supports all of these initiatives however, it does recognize that shortfalls still remain. Specifically, the C–130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) addresses cockpit mod-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

23 ernization needs of the aircraft however; the AMP program does not include the flight engineers control panel, which is a key com-ponent of the cockpit. Failure to upgrade the flight engineer control panel could leave the C–130H fleet with continued obsolescence issues post AMP. If the Air Force were to decide to upgrade this equipment at a later date, they will have missed the efficiencies of conducting those upgrades concurrent with the AMP upgrades. Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force to explore the possibility of upgrading the C–130H flight engineer overhead con-trol panel using readily available off the shelf technology. Further-more, if the Air Force determines that these upgrades are nec-essary, they should make every effort to upgrade the aircraft in parallel with the AMP program in order to minimize disruption to the operation of the C–130H fleet and mission. C–130H propulsion systems upgrade The budget request contained $22.1 million for procurement of C–130 modifications but no funds for C–130H propulsion systems upgrades. The committee continues to support the upgrade of C–130H/LC– 130H aircraft with the T56 3.5 engine enhancement and NP2000 8-bladed propeller. The committee notes that the Air National Guard (ANG) completed testing of the T56 3.5 engine enhancement and reported results that exceeded expectations for fuel savings and performance. The committee understands that the ANG ex-pects to issue a full test report in the summer of 2018, to be fol-lowed by a business case analysis for upgrading the entire fleet of C–130H/LC–130H aircraft. Additionally, the committee is aware that fiscal year 2016 and 2017 propulsion upgrade funds have been put on contract. The committee expects the Air Force to include the necessary funds to accelerate C–130H/LC–130H upgrades in future base budgets. The committee recommends $129.0 million for the C–130H/LC– 130H propulsion systems upgrade program. Compass Call transition plan The committee supports the Air Force’s efforts to recapitalize the aging EC–130H Compass Call fleet with the more capable EC–37 type aircraft. The committee notes that the Air Force must first comply with 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) before it can carry on with the transition plan. The Air Force requested $108.1 million for fiscal year 2019 for one EC–37. The committee is concerned that the Air Force plan to procure one aircraft per year over 10 years in order to recapitalize this fleet is not the most efficient way to move the capability to the field quickly, and may put the Com-pass Call mission at unacceptable risk of mission failure. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2019, 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 incom-ing EC–37 aircraft;

24 (2) attendant timelines for each course of action; (3) cost estimates for each course of action; (4) recommended course of action and a plan to manage both fleets while supporting combatant commander requirements; and (5) an assessment of the potential for future cooperative develop-ment and procurement of EC–37B Compass Call aircraft by the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom and the Royal Australian Air Force in a way the leverages the best practices of the RC–135 cooperative program arrangement with the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom. F–15C Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System The budget request contained $147.7 million for procurement of the F–15 Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS) for the F–15E, but included no funds for procurement of F–15C EPAWSS kits. The F–15 EPAWSS provides radar warn-ing, geo-location, situational awareness, and self-protection solu-tions to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats in contested environments. The committee notes that the budget request includes $137.1 million to continue execution of the engineering, manufacturing and development phase for F–15 C and E aircraft, which includes delivering test assets, development test activities, and continued acquisition support for Milestone C. The committee also notes that the budget request includes $147.7 million to initiate procurement of F–15E EPAWSS kits, but believes that procurement of F–15C EPAWSS kits is critical to ensure the F–15C’s survivability on a modern battlefield in the air superiority mission. Consequently, the committee recommends $214.9 million for F– 15 EPAWSS procurement, an increase of $67.2 million for procure-ment of four F–15C EPAWSS kits. The committee expects that the Department of the Air Force will execute the F–15 EPAWSS pro-curement upgrade program for the planned 217 F–15Es and 196 F– 15Cs. F–35 autonomic logistics information system The F–35 Lightning II is the Department of Defense‘s largest ac-quisition program, which will eventually deliver 2,443 F–35 aircraft to the Departments of the Navy and Air Force. The committee be-lieves that the F–35 will form the backbone of U.S. air combat su-periority for decades to come, replacing or complementing the leg-acy tactical fighter fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant, multi-role, fifth-generation aircraft capable of projecting U.S. power and deterring potential adversaries. The committee notes that for the F–35 program’s international partners and foreign military sales customers who are participating in the program, the F–35 will become a cornerstone for future coalition operations. The committee believes that the F–35 will help to close a crucial capability gap that will enhance the strength of our secu-rity alliances. The committee, therefore, continues its strong sup-port of this essential aircraft development and procurement pro-gram. Consistent with its support of the F–35 program and oversight responsibilities, the committee notes that at a hearing held by the House Committee on Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Tactical Air VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

25 and Land Forces on March 7, 2018, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force witnesses all expressed a concern about the autonomic lo-gistics information system (ALIS). The Air Force witness testified that the ALIS is currently labor-intensive for maintainers and sup-port personnel, negatively affecting flight line operations and work-force development. During a subcommittee visit to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, in April 2018, subcommittee members met with Air Force F–35 maintenance personnel who reported that they are still very disappointed in the autonomic logistics information system, and continue to have to use manual workarounds that take time and effort, resulting in lower aircraft availability and mission capa-ble rates. Given these ongoing problems, the committee will con-tinue to conduct a detailed review of the ALIS program. F–35 canopy transparencies The F–35 canopy transparency is the transparent enclosure over the cockpit of the F–35 aircraft. The committee notes that the F– 35 program uses a sole-source contract to procure F–35 canopy transparencies. The committee understands that the F–22 program uses a two- source acquisition strategy for canopy transparencies, and that competition from that acquisition strategy has resulted in a more secure supply chain, increased innovation, longer product service life, and lower operating costs. Accordingly, the committee believes a two-source acquisition strategy for F–35 canopy transparencies could provide similar benefits. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 14, 2018, on the costs, benefits, analysis, and schedule impacts of the F–35 program using a two-source ac-quisition strategy for F–35 canopy transparencies. F–35 sustainment affordability At a hearing held by the House Committee on Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on March 7, 2018, the witnesses all expressed a concern about current operations and sustainment costs and testified that those costs would need to be reduced by over 30 percent to make the F–35 operationally afford-able. At that hearing, the Air Force witness testified that if pro-jected overall costs for the F–35 are not reduced, the Air Force would not be able to afford its planned procurement of 1,763 air-craft. While the F–35 program is currently procuring early produc-tion lots of F–35 aircraft, the committee believes opportunities exist to take actions that would reduce future F–35 operations and sustainment costs. Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy, in concert with the F–35 Joint Program Office, to undertake the necessary actions to reduce F–35 sustainment costs. The committee believes that those actions should include, but not be limited to, addressing spare part short-ages, addressing technical data requirements, accelerating both land- and sea-based intermediate maintenance capabilities, and modernization of the autonomic logistics information system. Additionally, the committee believes that increased F–35 produc-tion rates and larger F–35 economies of scale could also help lower VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

26 unit procurement and sustainment costs. Moreover, the committee also believes that advances in potential adversary aircraft and sur-face-to-air missile defense systems necessitate a combat fighter force with a higher percentage of fifth generation aircraft. Accord-ingly, the committee strongly encourages the Department to in-crease future F–35 production rates. Future sustainment of remotely piloted aircraft tactical intelligence and strike capabilities The budget request contained $946.6 million for procurement of 29 MQ–9A aircraft. The committee recognizes that the Air Force has a 380 total air-craft inventory (TAI) requirement for MQ–9A aircraft, and is also using a current metric of 40,000 hours for the MQ–9A airframe service-life determination, an increase of 20,000 hours beyond the validated airframe service-life metric. The committee is also wait-ing to receive a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) from the Air Force, re-quired by section 137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), comparing continued pro-curement of MQ–9A Block 5 aircraft versus a transition to procure-ment of MQ–9B aircraft that is still in prototype development by the aircraft manufacturer. The committee understands that the Air Force could forgo the option of continued Block 5 upgrades to exist-ing MQ–9A aircraft, and could pursue an option to participate in development and procurement of the MQ–9B aircraft, but the com-mittee still lacks the required information to make an informed de-termination as to which effort the Air Force should pursue. The committee is also concerned by the Air Force’s attempt this year to categorize MQ–9A aircraft that reach their airframe service-life limit as ‘‘combat-loss attrition’’ to justify additional aircraft pro-curement using Overseas Contingency Operations resources, when past practice has been to categorize combat-loss attrition only as those aircraft that are destroyed or damaged beyond repair due to hostile engagement by adversaries or aircraft accidents. The com-mittee is also concerned by the Air Force’s irregular procurement quantity of aircraft outlined in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and assesses that a more stable profile is needed. Therefore, the committee recommends $796.6 million, a decrease of $149.9 million and quantity of 7 aircraft, for a total procurement of 22 MQ–9A in fiscal year 2019. This decrease will minimize any waste of resources should the aforementioned Air Force CBA favor procuring MQ–9B instead of continuing MQ–9A Block 5 procure-ment, and also provide a more stable quantity procurement profile during the FYDP without harming TAI goals. The committee also expects the Secretary of the Air Force to adjust the future strategy for sustainment of remotely piloted aircraft tactical intelligence and strike capabilities if the CBA determines it best to procure MQ–9B aircraft instead of MQ–9A Block 5 aircraft. OA–X light attack aircraft program The budget request contained no funds for the OA–X light attack aircraft program. The committee understands that the Department of the Air Force intends to include funding for the OA–X light at-tack aircraft program in fiscal year 2020. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

27 The committee believes that a light attack fighter aircraft is a continuing and exigent need to conduct close air support, counter-insurgency, armed reconnaissance, and other combat operations in more permissive threat environments. The committee further be-lieves that procurement of light attack aircraft would increase the number of cockpits available to season Air Force pilots, thereby providing improvement to current pilot personnel shortfalls. Addi-tionally, the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has stated, ‘‘A light attack aircraft would not only provide relief to our 4th and 5th generation aircraft, but also bolster our interoper-ability so we can more effectively employ airpower as an inter-national team.’’ Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the Air Force to accelerate the OA–X light attack program. Additionally, to ensure the Department of the Air Force procures a low-cost aircraft that will provide cost efficiency along with qual-ity capability, the committee encourages the Department to use a best value, rather than a lowest price technically acceptable, cri-teria for its source selection decision. Production adjustment for KC–46A air refueling aircraft The budget request contained $2.56 billion for the procurement of 15 KC–46A air refueling tankers. The committee notes that the KC–46A program costs remain sta-ble, but the delivery schedule may be further delayed. Currently, the Air Force is reporting three category one deficiencies including two for the remote vision system (RVS) and one for the center-line drogue system (CDS). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed in its latest report, GAO–18–353, that the program up-dated its delivery schedule in 2017 to allow the defense contractor to delay delivery of the first 18 fully capable aircraft by 14 months. This delay moved the delivery date from August 2017 to October 2018. According to a schedule risk assessment and GAO’s analysis, if risk is not mitigated, deliveries could be delayed further to May 2019, 21 months from the originally scheduled delivery. The contin-ued delays are set to cause a backup of unaccepted aircraft await-ing the completion of contractual test and documentation require-ments. The defense manufacturer believes that it will meet the cur-rent delivery schedule and that it has taken appropriate steps to address all category one deficiencies by improving the RVS visual display and fine-tuning CDS software to reduce the number of un-intended refueling disconnects. Given the latest Air Force schedule risk assessment, the committee believes the Secretary of the Air Force could use the variation in quantity provision in the contract to reduce the procurement by three aircraft in fiscal year 2019 without impacting the out-year per unit cost of each aircraft. The committee believes that the three additional aircraft funded in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) could be awarded in fiscal year 2019 to help mitigate any production line impact. Elsewhere in this bill, funds have been limited for the pro-curement of three additional KC–46A aircraft until certain condi-tions are met. Lastly, the committee believes that it is warranted to reduce funds for interim contractor support concurrent with the late delivery of aircraft. The committee intends to provide strict VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

28 oversight of this issue and review timelines to compliance to ensure reductions are aligned with ongoing decisions to accept aircraft. The committee recommends $2.06 billion, a decrease of $499.0 million, for the procurement of 12 KC–46A air refueling tankers and $50.0 million for interim contractor support. RQ–4 Global Hawk and EQ–4 battlefield airborne communications node aircraft The budget request contained $23.7 million for RQ–4 Global Hawk and EQ–4 modifications, but contained no funding for addi-tional EQ–4 aircraft. The committee recognizes that both the RQ–4 and EQ–4 provide critical warfighting capabilities in communications relay and high- altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mis-sion areas for combatant commanders (COCOM). The committee is also satisfied that the EQ–4 has transitioned to a formal Air Force program of record. However, the committee is concerned that the current communication architecture for operating the RQ–4 is anti-quated, difficult to maintain, and limits the Air Force’s ability to fully use the system to meet COCOM demands for increased capac-ity and capability. The committee also believes that insufficient ca-pacity exists for the robust communications capability the EQ–4 provides to COCOMs, and that based on current quantity of mis-sion support taskings, the EQ–4 fleet of aircraft could reach serv-ice-life limits quicker than anticipated, creating an unmitigated ca-pability gap. The committee supports any Air Force plan to initiate development of the RQ–4 Communication System Modernization Program (CSMP) in fiscal year 2020 to meet combatant commander requirements for expanded airborne communications relay and ISR, as well as establish a pathway to more quickly meet emerging high-altitude, long-endurance ISR and communications require-ments. Therefore, the committee recommends $128.7 million, an in-crease of $105.0 million, for procurement of one additional EQ–4 aircraft and associated modifications. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congres-sional defense committees, not later than February 5, 2019, on the RQ–4 CSMP acquisition strategy. The report should include an up-dated RQ–4 CSMP acquisition strategy, including a program sched-ule and budget requirements for development, testing, and fielding of the capability, and a description of how the Air Force is bal-ancing the resources required for CSMP with other efforts to in-crease RQ–4 sensor capabilities over this same time period. Total Force C–17 Fleet Management Plan The committee notes that the Air Force must carefully manage the life cycle of each of its 222 C–17 strategic airlift aircraft as-signed to the Regular, Reserve, and Air National Guard Compo-nents from an enterprise point of view in order to extract the max-imum amount of utility from this limited resource. The committee is also aware that the Air Force is unable to meet its current re-quirement for strategic airlift as outlined by the fiscal year 2013 Mobility Capability Requirements Study (MCRS). Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) directed the Secretary of Defense to carry out a new VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

29 MCRS. This study is to take into account attrition for the first time, which is likely to result in a higher requirement for strategic airlift. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2019, on the Total Force C–17 Fleet Management Plan. This briefing should include: (1) a table and timeline that shows when C–17s will be retired by tail number; (2) various courses of action that could be pursued and the im-pact to meeting the strategic airlift requirements; (3) limitation or impediments to controlling the retirement timeline of C–17 aircraft; and (4) legislative relief that could enable better management of the fleet through retirement. Total Force KC–135R net centric operations and battlespace aware-ness The committee is aware that all three Air Force components of the Total Force (Regular, Air National Guard, and Reserve) operate the KC–135 Stratotanker, which is Air Mobility Command’s pri-mary air refueling platform. The KC–135 provides approximately 87 percent of air refueling support to U.S., allied, and coalition military aircraft. The committee believes that upgrades to KC–135 defensive sys-tems, including tactical data link technologies, situational aware-ness displays that bring real-time threat information, and secure radio capability, greatly enhance KC–135 air refueling, airlift, and aeromedical evacuation missions. These systems are meant to pro-tect the aircraft during takeoff, landing, and refueling flight re-gimes. Also, the systems offer protection during normal refueling flight operations against both infrared and radar-guided air-to-air missiles. Furthermore, the committee believes that upgrades to the KC–135 Real-Time Information in the Cockpit (RTIC) system would enhance network capability and provide a common proc-essing and display platform resulting in consolidated situational awareness. As reflected in division D of this Act, the committee recommends additional funding for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account. The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to consider using these funds to modernize the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve with RTIC and self-protection commercial off-the-shelf solutions through a competitive process. U–2 The budget request contained $106.9 million in PE 34260F for the airborne signals intelligence (SIGINT) enterprise and $70.6 million in PE 35202F for U–2 sensor development, but contained insufficient funding to develop a single-pod SIGINT capability or accelerate electro-optical and infrared sensor upgrades. The committee supports the Air Force’s renewed commitment to the U–2 program reflected in the President’s budget request for fis-cal year 2019, and the Future Years Defense Program. To ensure the combat capability needed to stay ahead of emerging threats, the committee supports accelerating U–2 modernization and

30 sustainment efforts. The planned efforts have the potential to pro-vide a substantial leap in intelligence capability to the warfighter over the upcoming years. Therefore, the committee recommends $109.9 million in PE 34260F, an increase of $3.0 million, for single-pod SIGINT develop-ment, and recommends $87.6 million in PE 35202F, an increase of $17.0 million, to accelerate electro-optical and infrared sensor up-grades. The committee also recommends elsewhere in this Act an increase of $38.0 million to refurbish and restore U–2 tail number 80–1099 to combat-ready status, and to provide increased high-alti-tude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capacity to the combatant commanders. MISSILEPROCUREMENT, AIRFORCEItems of Special Interest AIM–120 production rate The budget request contained $552.7 million for procurement of 363 AIM–120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM). The committee notes that this request is 294 fewer AMRAAM missiles than were projected for fiscal year 2019 in last year’s budget request. The committee notes further that additional stocks of the most modern version of the AMRAAM missile is a top pri-ority of numerous combatant commands. While the committee un-derstands that this production rate drop is due to significant delays with the form, fit, function refresh plan to address obsolescence issues, it is concerned that the Air Force is also limiting production quantities of other AMRAAM models sold via foreign military sales (FMS). The committee believes that production of additional FMS variants may help mitigate risk to the supplier base and overall production capacity for the weapon. Therefore, the committee en-courages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the AMRAAM production line is kept at or near full capacity whenever possible, either by increasing production to fill U.S. military requirements or by supplementing production for the U.S. military with higher FMS production. The committee recommends $552.7 million, the full amount re-quested, for AIM–120 AMRAAM procurement. OTHERPROCUREMENT, AIRFORCEItems of Special Interest Deployable Air Base Systems Given increasing threats, the committee supports efforts to en-hance U.S., allied, and partner airbase resiliency in the Indo-Pa-cific region. The committee is especially supportive of the logistics and resiliency investments identified by the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command’s (PACOM) critical investments list as well as the forward air base resiliency requirements as identified on PACOM’s integrated priority list. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, no later than December 1, 2018, on potential courses of action, to VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

31 include rapid acquisition strategies to rapidly procure Deployable Air Base Systems in order to address identified PACOM capability gaps. PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDEItems of Special Interest Common Analytical Laboratory System The budget request contained $48.3 million for the Common Ana-lytical Laboratory System (CALS), a tool to enable detection and identification of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and ex-plosive (CBRNE) threats. CALS provides analytical lab capabilities in the field, allowing field commanders to make faster and more in-formed response decisions, minimizing the effects of CBRNE threats. The committee recommends $48.3 million, the amount re-quested, for the Common Analytical Laboratory System. Multi-Domain Command and Control The committee understands the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy are undertaking efforts to create robust Multi-Domain Command and Control (MDC2) capabilities. The committee supports each Department’s plans to ensure MDC2 pro-gram efforts are leveraging rapid experimentation and fielding of forward-deployed modular mission Systems for resilient commu-nications and high-performance computing resources for the MDC2 mission. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2018, that explains future funding and any other requirements to achieve rapid experi-mentation and fielding of MDC2 capabilities to the warfighter. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONSSection 101—Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize appropriations for procurement at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—ARMYPROGRAMSSection 111—National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment report This section would modify the annual National Guard and Re-serve Component Equipment report, as required by section 10541 of title 10, United States Code, to include an assessment by the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of the National Guard Bu-reau regarding modernization equipment parity between the active component, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

32 Section 112—Limitation on availability of funds for M27 infantry automatic rifle program This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 20 per-cent of the funds for the Marine Corps M27 infantry automatic rifle program until the Commandant of the Marine Corps provides an assessment of the Marine Corps views on the Army’s Small Arms Ammunition Configuration Study, and whether the outcomes of this study are informing future small arms procurement for the Marine Corps. The assessment shall also include details regarding the Marine Corps near- and long-term small arms modernization strategy. SUBTITLEC—NAVYPROGRAMSSection 121—Increase in Number of Operational Aircraft Carriers of the Navy This section would provide the sense of Congress as to aircraft carrier force structure. Additionally, this section would modify sec-tion 5062 of title 10, United States Code, by increasing the re-quired aircraft carrier force structure from 11 to 12 operational air-craft carriers by September 30, 2022. Section 122—Procurement Authority for Ford Class Aircraft Carrier Program This section would authorize the construction of one Ford class aircraft carrier designated CVN–81. Section 123—Full Ship Shock Trial for Ford Class Aircraft Carrier This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to incor-porate full ship shock trial results into the construction of the Ford class aircraft carrier designated CVN–81. Section 124—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Amphibious Vessels This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement for five San Antonio-class amphib-ious transport dock ships with a Flight II configuration. Section 125—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Standard Missile–6 This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into one or more multiyear contracts for 625 Standard Missile–6 missiles beginning in fiscal year 2019, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. Section 126—Multiyear Procurement Authority for E–2D Aircraft This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into one or more multiyear contracts for up to 24 E–2D aircraft be-ginning in fiscal year 2019, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

33 Section 127—Multiyear Procurement Authority for F/A–18E/F Aircraft and EA–18G Aircraft Subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, this sec-tion would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into one or more multiyear contracts, beginning with the fiscal year 2019 program year, for the procurement of F/A–18E/F aircraft and EA– 18G aircraft. Section 128—Modifications to F/A–18 Aircraft To Mitigate Physiological Episodes This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to modify the F/A–18 aircraft to reduce the occurrence of, and mitigate the risk posed by, physiological episodes affecting crewmembers of the aircraft, and require the Secretary to include certain minimum modifications, and submit to the congressional defense committees a written update on the status of all modifications to the F/A–18 aircraft carried out pursuant to this section not later than Feb-ruary 1, 2019, and annually thereafter through February 1, 2021. Section 129—Frigate Class Ship Program This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to procure technical data rights to any acquired frigate class vessel. Addition-ally, this section would require the Secretary to recompete the frig-ate class procurement not later than the award of the 10th frigate using the acquired technical data rights. Section 130—Limitation on Procurement of Economic Order Quantities for Virginia Class Submarine Program This section would modify section 124 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) and prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from entering into economic order quantity contracts for the Virginia-class submarine program until the Secretary certifies that such funding shall be used to enter into economic order quantities for 12 Virginia-class sub-marines. Section 131—Limitation on Use of Funds for DDG–51 Destroyers This section would limit expenditures of Shipbuilding and Con-version, Navy, for DDG–51 destroyers until the Secretary of the Navy submits a report as to incorporating degaussing standards into the destroyer program. SUBTITLED—AIRFORCEPROGRAMSSection 141—Inventory Requirement for Air Refueling Tanker Aircraft; Limitation on Retirement of KC–10A Aircraft This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to in-crease the current air refueling tanker fleet from 457 to 479 pri-mary assigned aircraft before it can begin to retire KC–10A air-craft. The Air Force shall maintain 479 total tanker aircraft there-after, unless adjusted by the fiscal year 2018 ‘‘Mobility Capability and Requirements Study.’’ VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

34 Section 142—Limitation on Use of Funds for KC–46A Aircraft Pending Submittal of Certification This section would limit the funds authorized to be appropriated to procure three KC–46A aircraft until the Secretary of the Air Force certifies that both supplemental and military type certifi-cations have been approved and that the first aircraft has been ac-cepted by the Air Force. Section 143—Retirement Date for VC–25A Aircraft This section would fix the retirement date for the purposes of this statute as it applies to the two Air Force VC–25A aircraft as not later than December 31, 2025. Section 144—Contract for Logistics Support for VC–25B Aircraft This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to en-sure that the VC–25B contract for logistics support complies with part 17.204(e) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation and also com-plies with section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, with regard to open competition. Section 145—Multiyear Procurement Authority for C–130J Aircraft This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into one or more multiyear contracts for up to 52 C–130J air-craft beginning in fiscal year 2019, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. Section 146—Removal of Waiting Period for Limitation on Avail-ability of Funds for EC–130H Compass Call Recapitalization Pro-gram This section would strike the 30-day waiting period imposed on EC–130H funds by section 135(a) of the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). Section 147—Findings and Sense of Congress Regarding KC–46 Aerial Refueling Tankers This section would express the sense of Congress in support of industry and Air Force ensuring that the first KC–46A tanker is delivered in fiscal year 2018. SUBTITLEE—DEFENSE-WIDE, JOINT, ANDMULTISERVICEMATTERSSection 151—Buy-to-Budget Acquisition of F–35 Aircraft This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, subject to section 2308 of title 10, United States Code, to procure a higher quantity of F–35 aircraft than authorized by this Act if such addi-tional procurement does not require additional funds. Section 152—Certification on Inclusion of Technology To Minimize Physiological Episodes in Certain Aircraft This section would require that not later than 15 days before en-tering into a contract for the procurement of a covered aircraft, the Secretary concerned would submit to the congressional defense VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

35 committees a written statement certifying that the aircraft to be procured under a contract would include the most recent techno-logical advancements necessary to minimize the impact of physio-logical episodes on aircraft crewmembers. TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, ANDEVALUATION, ARMYItems of Special Interest Accelerated integration to counter emerging threats The Committee supports the accelerated integration capability to counter emerging threats being initiated by the Program Executive Office, Missiles and Space. The Army is developing a government- owned capability to provide cyber-robust networked weapon sys-tems designed to operate within rapidly evolving threat timelines. The Committee understands this is being accomplished through a unique approach to adapt and respond to real-time threats, dra-matically accelerating the timeline to employ resilience in networked weapon systems. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Rep-resentatives by March 1, 2019, on the status of progress being made through this accelerated program. Assured Position, Navigation and Timing In response to global peer threats and demands from combatant commanders, the committee last year expressed its concern that the Army was not moving fast enough to field Assured Position Navigation and Timing (APNT) solutions. APNT solutions are re-quired because of the reliance of military vehicles, communications and weapons systems on precise position, navigation and timing. The committee understands that strategic high-end competitors possess the capability to disrupt systems that depend on GPS which could pose an unacceptable level of risk to U.S. operations in GPS-denied environments. The committee notes the Army has stood up a Cross Functional Team (CFT) pilot to rapidly assess ma-terial development solutions to address the APNT mission area and perceived capability gaps. In response to Section 236 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2018, the Army submitted a report to the con-gressional defense committees dated March 30th, 2018 that de-scribed its approach to test various systems at White Sands Missile Range in the 3rd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018. The Army’s report further described fielding both the A kits and B kits of a Quick Re-action Capability to specific units starting in the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2019. The committee understands that this testing is ongoing. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Director of the Army’s APNT CFT pilot, to provide a brief-ing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2018 that outlines potential courses of action to begin immediate

36 procurement of these systems, subject to successful test and eval-uations. Targeted Soldier Borne Sensor efforts The committee is encouraged by the Army’s efforts to field the new Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) capability to the warfighter and is encouraged by the Army’s recognition of this capability require-ment at the squad level. The committee understands the additional visual and situational awareness provided by the sensor to the warfighter will improve the survivability and lethality of the force. The committee also notes that a capability to operate within high- threat and GPS-denied areas, including but not limited to indoors and within tunnels, is currently available with SBS technologies under evaluation. However, the committee understands there are concerns regarding the current generation of thermal sensors asso-ciated with ongoing SBS technology evaluations. Specifically, the committee understands that current thermal sensors reportedly do not provide sufficient resolution to meet desired performance objec-tives. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to focus development efforts to accelerate technology development of electro- optic and infrared sensors that could be carried by the SBS. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 28, 2018, on current development efforts to address and resolve concerns regarding electro-optic and infrared sensor capabilities within the SBS platform. This briefing shall also include a detailed analysis of the electro-optic and infrared sensor technologies under evaluation and a plan for addressing the SBS requirement. Computational molecular modeling and simulation for material de-velopment The committee is aware the use of modeling and simulation dur-ing development of materials and other technologies may result in cost savings and other benefits, such as enhanced lethality and sur-vivability. The committee understands that computational molec-ular modeling and simulation results subsequently tested using cold spray synthesis and mechanical testing have resulted in new repair techniques for armor, helmets, and other personal protective equipment. The committee, therefore, encourages the Army Re-search Lab to continue the utilization of computational molecular research for material development. Future digital munitions and integration The committee recognizes the importance for the Army to retain lethality overmatch within its aviation portfolio. The committee continues to support the Army’s Future Vertical Lift and Joint Multi-Role technology demonstration initiatives. However, the com-mittee is concerned about the Army’s ability to mitigate Apache helicopter and Grey Eagle Unmanned Aerial System munitions and launcher obsolescence limitations for the foreseeable future. The committee believes existing and emerging threats are key factors to ensuring lethality overmatch. As digital aviation-launched muni-tions evolve, the need for the Army to retain flexibility in aircraft to munitions integration is critical to ensuring Army Aviation plat-forms retain a decisive edge. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

37 Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 15, 2018, on the following: (1) all requirements, acquisition program plans, and develop-mental initiatives that address the modernization strategy for all aviation platform munitions and launchers beyond currently fielded systems; and (2) recommendations on the utility for any development efforts that would modernize aviation launchers and munitions. Future Vertical Lift The committee understands that dedicated investment in incre-mental rotorcraft upgrades has kept America’s current vertical lift aviation capabilities viable, and will continue to enable the fleet to bridge capability gaps through the near term. The committee be-lieves that as more dangerous threats emerge at an accelerated pace in the mid-term, unwavering investment in advanced future disruptive technologies like Future Vertical Lift (FVL) will enable rotorcraft aviation to retain overmatch through significant capa-bility improvements in reach, speed, protection, and lethality. The committee notes that the Army leads the Department of De-fense’s rotorcraft technology portfolio, which needs additional re-search and development funding to regain America’s world leader-ship in rotorcraft innovation. Because of America’s eroding lead in rotorcraft capability, the committee encourages the Department to explore opportunities to accelerate the FVL program in order to meet national security challenges. The committee expects the De-partment to maximize full and open competition in doing so. The committee believes that fiscal years 2019 and 2020 are piv-otal years for the FVL modernization efforts, as critical technology demonstrations provide essential evidence during the completion of the FVL analysis of alternatives, and the Army uses this data and analysis to inform its path forward. Therefore, the committee di-rects the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on the out-come of the analysis of alternatives and on any other analysis uti-lized in deciding the Army’s priority of rotorcraft investment for FVL prior to the release of a request for proposal. Harnessing Emerging Research Opportunities to Empower Soldiers The committee is aware of the work being done by the Army’s Warfighter Technology directorate in improving the protection, sur-vivability, mobility, and combat effectiveness of the Army. The committee is also aware of Harnessing Emerging Research Oppor-tunities to Empower Soldiers (HEROES), an ongoing joint research and development initiative involving both academia and industry. The committee understands that the HEROES initiative acceler-ates research and innovation through integration of intellectual as-sets and research facilities, such as those at Natick Laboratory and others. The committee believes programs like HEROES provide benefit to research in areas of advanced ballistic polymers for body armor, fibers to make uniforms more fire resistant, and lightweight structures for advanced shelters that provide tangible benefits to the warfighter. Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to continue to support such programs. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

38 High energy laser systems integration laboratory The committee has continuing interest in the Army’s research, development, and testing of high energy laser weapons systems. The committee is aware of the Army’s efforts to develop a high en-ergy laser system integration laboratory in order to provide an interactive means to conduct warfighter assessments and develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures required to employ this technology. The committee recognizes this integration will be crit-ical in bridging the gap from developmental technology to oper-ational capability, while mitigating risk and ensuring warfighter utility. The committee encourages the Army to continue to mature the high energy laser system integration lab, as well as the benefit these activities provide to the research, development, and testing of directed energy weapons. Improved Turbine Engine Program The Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) is a competitive acquisition program designed to develop a more fuel efficient and powerful engine to upgrade and enhance the performance and oper-ational readiness of the current Black Hawk and Apache helicopter fleets. This new engine will increase operational capabilities in high altitudes and hot conditions while reducing operating and support costs. The committee has supported significant Army in-vestments into competitive technology development programs for turbine engines over the past decade. During this time, the Army has made significant progress in maturing technologies that will lower ITEP programmatic risk with the goal of improving warfighting capabilities. In addition, the committee has encouraged the Army to prioritize maintenance and sustainment costs for ITEP to ensure the continued affordability of the program. The committee also acknowledges the benefits of improved fuel efficiencies through lower specific fuel consumption that the ITEP will bring to the battlefield. This program represents a cost-effec-tive approach to modernizing Army aviation and the committee continues to encourage the Army to pursue opportunities to accel-erate the fielding of this capability. The committee recognizes 2019 as a crucial year for the program with Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) source selection slated for first quarter fiscal year 2019. Given the positive progress of this critical program, the committee is fully funding ITEP in fiscal year 2019 and encourages the Army to robustly fund ITEP in the EMD phase of the program. Initial Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense capability The committee is aware that the Army’s critical capability gap for Air and Missile Defense remains protecting maneuvering forces. The committee understands that Army maneuver formations re-quire short range air defense (SHORAD) and counter-UAS (CUAS) capabilities that can cover a wide range of air threats to include: unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), rotary wing (RW), fixed wing (FW), and rockets artillery and mortars (RAM). As such, the com-mittee understands the Army is pursuing cross-domain, multi-di-mensional solutions that can address these threats as part of a ma-neuver short-range air defense and indirect fires protection capa-bility. The committee encourages the Army to consider areas where VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

39 commonality exists between current CUAS and SHORAD mission platforms and technologies. The committee understands the Army has formalized a directed requirement to initiate integration and procurement of an initial Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (IM–SHORAD) capability on a Stryker combat vehicle. The IM–SHORAD directed requirement re-quires capability to counter threats posed by UAS, RW, FW, and RAM, as well as address an emerging operational need in support of Operation Atlantic Resolve to provide air and missile defense protection of Stryker and Armored Brigade Combat Teams. The committee understands the acquisition strategy to support this di-rected requirement is still being developed. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 14, 2018, on the Army’s accelerated acquisition strategy for the IM–SHORAD initiative, as well as identify requirements that are similar to both the SHORAD and CUAS missions. The briefing should also address capabilities currently under development or al-ready fielded that could simultaneously address the CUAS and M– SHORAD mission areas. Iron Dome experimentation and assessment for short-range air de-fense The budget request included $38.0 million in PE 64020A for cross functional team (CFT) advanced development and proto-typing. The committee understands the Army established six CFT pilots to examine how the Army could leverage existing resources and ac-celerate getting needed capability to the warfighter. The Army’s critical capability gap for Air and Missile Defense (AMD) remains protecting the maneuvering force and is aware the AMD CFT pilot is focused on accelerating delivery of a maneuver short-range air defense (SHORAD) capability. The committee commends the AMD CFT for getting an approved directed requirement for an interim- maneuver SHORAD capability that accelerated the original sched-ule by 5 years. The committee notes the AMD CFT is also review-ing other AMD capability gaps for the protection of fixed and semi- fixed sites. The committee expects the AMD CFT to immediately address capability gaps in the areas of indirect fire protection capa-bility and AMD. Since 2011, Congress has provided over $1.5 billion for the pro-curement of Iron Dome batteries for the State of Israel, a system with demonstrated capability against a wide-range of threats. There is value in experimenting with the Iron Dome system through demonstrations to assess operational suitability for the fixed and semi-fixed site AMD mission, and M–SHORAD missions. Such demonstrations will evaluate challenges associated with inte-gration of the Iron Dome command and control system with the ex-isting AMD C2 system and sensors. The committee recommends $68.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million, in PE 64020A to support the acquisition of Iron Dome hardware and associated integration activities, for the operational demonstration of the Iron Dome system against a range of threats to evaluate issues associated with the following: VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

40 (1) integrating the Iron Dome launcher into a U.S. Army AMD architecture for complimentary support of fixed, semi-fixed, and M– SHORAD operations; (2) re-designing the Iron Dome launcher to be compatible with the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Multi-Mission Launcher; and (3) potential options for accelerating development of the Skyhunter missile. Further, the committee directs the Director of the AMD CFT to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by April 2, 2019, on the Army’s plans for this experiment and dem-onstration. If warranted by the demonstration results, the com-mittee directs the Director of the AMD CFT to provide a follow-on briefing on the advisability and feasibility of rapidly transitioning Iron Dome hardware for immediate use, with budgetary rec-ommendations and schedules for accelerated procurement of addi-tional systems. Lightweight metal matrix composite technology for combat and tac-tical vehicles In the committee report (H. Rept. 115–200) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, the com-mittee recognized the versatility and broad application that Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) Technology provides for the Armed Forces by reducing the weight of parts by 50 percent and increas-ing their service life by three to four times that of traditional steel parts. The committee understands the U.S. Army Tank and Auto-motive Research, Development, and Engineering Command (TARDEC) is currently evaluating technologies that can reduce ve-hicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, and extend service life of combat and tactical vehicles, and that MMC technology is part of this ongoing evaluation. The committee supports these efforts and recommends the U.S. Army TARDEC continue to test MMC technology, develop and field components that can reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, and extend service life. M119 105mm self-propelled artillery system technology The committee understands the Army is examining the oper-ational benefits of procuring a self-propelled 105mm howitzer in order to address existing capability gaps for infantry brigade com-bat teams (IBCTs) indirect fires capabilities. The committee under-stands that recent demonstrations as part of the Army’s Maneuver and Fires Integration Experiment at Fort Sill produced positive re-sults. The committee supports continued demonstrations of this ca-pability and is aware of a potential future demonstration under consideration by the 18th Airborne Corps. The committee under-stands the demonstrated system incorporated artillery soft recoil technology with existing 105mm artillery systems and then inte-grated these technologies onto an existing light tactical vehicle. The committee expects the outcomes from these demonstrations to in-form future operational requirements and procurement strategies. The committee believes this capability could enable the Army to achieve significant improvements in combat capability and lethality through only a modest reinvestment of funding for current or fu-

41 ture planned M119 105mm howitzer modifications. Further, the committee also believes a light, self-propelled 105mm artillery sys-tem could substantially improve the deterrence posture of the U.S. Army and allied armies in Europe that may face sophisticated, quick-fire counter-battery systems. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Directors of the Long-Range Precision Fires and Soldier Lethality cross-functional teams, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 14, 2018, on the advis-ability and feasibility of rapidly accelerating the testing, evalua-tion, and procurement of a self-propelled 105mm howitzer to ad-dress the indirect fire capability gaps in IBCTs. The briefing shall include feedback and results from recent demonstrations of self- propelled 105mm howitzer technology, specifically the demonstra-tion that occurred as part of the Army’s Maneuver and Fires Inte-gration Experiment at Fort Sill. Mobile camouflage system The committee notes the longstanding success of our allied part-ner nations who employ mobile camouflage systems on their com-bat vehicles, especially within the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-tion and the European theater. These relatively inexpensive cam-ouflage net systems provide enhanced signature management pro-tection, reduce heat and temperature inside and around combat ve-hicles, 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 particular woodland, desert, and Arctic variants. The committee is aware of the Army’s ongoing operational testing of mobile camouflage sys-tems at the National Training Center, and encourages further ac-celeration of those efforts. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 28, 2018, that outlines the mobile camouflage system test results and the Army’s plan and timeline to fund the accelerated develop-ment and fielding of these systems to the warfighter. Personal Protective Equipment advance technology development The budget request contained $18.0 million in PE 63827A for sol-dier systems-advanced development. The committee recognizes advancements the military services have made in researching and developing materials for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The committee notes that this work has steadily reduced the weight of and increased ballistic protec-tion for items like helmets, body armor, and protective undergar-ments designed for the men and women of the Armed Forces. The committee understands, based on the views of senior defense lab-oratory scientists, that further research on current materials, such as ceramics and Kevlar, are experiencing diminishing returns. The committee supports further research on advanced materials like high molecular weight polyethylene film and new and harder ce-ramics like boron suboxide. Therefore, the committee recommends $28.0 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63827A for PPE advanced materials re-search. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

42 Shoot-on-the-Move experimentation for short range air defense sys-tems The budget request contained $61.1 million in PE 63313A for Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology, to include investment in missile components enabling detection and full kinematic capabili-ties to develop shoot-on-the-move capability for future short range air defense (SHORAD). The committee is aware the Army is currently pursuing a near- term maneuver short range air defense (M–SHORAD) capability; however, the near-term solution will not include a shoot-on-the- move capability. The committee understands the capability to shoot-on-the-move would potentially be considered as a future ca-pability requirement as part of follow-on M–SHORAD increments. The committee believes that the development and demonstration of a shoot-on-the-move capability could enable future combat forma-tions to be protected from modern and advanced air and missile de-livered fires while maneuvering, and enable continuous force pro-tection during offensive operations. The committee recommends $71.1 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63313A to accelerate the development and potential demonstration of shoot-on-the-move capability for M–SHORAD platforms and associated systems. Soldier power and composite armor development The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 62105A for Materials Technology research. The committee understands that soldier power and composite armor technology development is critical to meeting the increased power demands of soldiers’ equipment, while reducing weight. The committee recognizes that conformal wearable battery technology provides a lightweight, flexible power solution that offers greater mobility and flexibility than current capabilities, while stream-lining the various battery types and sizes carried by the soldiers. The committee notes these capabilities provide soldiers with expe-ditionary power, as well as multiple power management alter-natives that are all designed for combat operations in austere envi-ronments and can be tailored to any mission. The committee sup-ports these programs and believes that they will help to reduce the soldiers’ combat carrying load, while meeting the future demands of an increased power burden as well as maximizing survivability and protection. The committee encourages the Army to continue to work with the industrial base to improve and upgrade components in the soldier power and composite armor portfolio to potentially reduce weight and cost, as well as to improve overall performance. The committee recommends $29.6 million, an increase of $1.0 million, in PE 62105A for Materials Technology research. Squad multipurpose equipment transport The committee understands the Army is conducting a 12-month technology demonstration leading to a capabilities production docu-ment and eventual procurement of a squad multipurpose equip-ment transport system (SMET). The SMET is an unmanned ground vehicle that will transport equipment for specific missions, resup-ply, and extended operations, thereby reducing soldier load and in-creasing squad mobility. The committee supports the Army’s use of VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

43 other transaction authority to achieve a rapid start to this effort, and encourages the Army to seek additional ways to expedite ac-quisition of this critical capability. The committee directs the Army’s Program Executive Officer for Combat Support and Combat Service Support to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2018, that includes: (1) options to accelerate this acquisition strategy; (2) courses of action to ensure the delivered system meets all key performance parameters; (3) findings and analysis from the user evaluations conducted by two brigade combat teams; and (4) an assessment of each variant’s reliance on generators versus batteries, power generation capabilities, noise signatures, abilities to adapt to additional systems such as flail and mine rollers, dual stretchers, backhoe and loader kits, as well as any other capabili-ties considered to be essential by the program executive officer. Supercavitating ammunition technology In the committee report accompanying the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (H. Rept. 115–200), the com-mittee noted that supercavitating ammunition can be used in var-ious operational environments, including air-to-air, water-to-water, air-to-water, and water-to-air, and that this technology could poten-tially address critical mission capability gaps for the warfighter. The committee also directed the U.S. Army Program Executive Of-ficer (PEO) for Ammunition, who acts as the single manager of all conventional ammunition, to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services on the current status of supercavitating ammunition technology across the Department ammunition enter-prise. The briefing acknowledged that the entire ammunition enter-prise of the Department of Defense recognizes the value of supercavitating ammunition, and indicated that several efforts are underway to evaluate its performance. The committee notes that this technology is currently in use by the Department of the Navy and that other organizations in the Department of Defense are evaluating supercavitating small caliber ammunition. The com-mittee is pleased that the Department of Defense is continuing to evaluate the performance of this technology and remains sup-portive of these efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the PEO for Ammunition, in co-ordination with all relevant Department of Defense agencies, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 14, 2018, on all current test and evaluation activity cur-rently ongoing and planned for supercavitating ammunition tech-nology. Third Generation Forward-Looking Infrared development The committee is aware of a growing parity in U.S. Army sights and sensors against current and emerging threats, particularly when it comes to combat vehicle platforms. The committee is con-cerned that the Third Generation Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) development program is proceeding at too slow of a pace to ensure it will enter production as an integrated system in the next Abrams tank and Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

44 Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 15, 2019, on the Army’s plans to synchronize the Third Gen-eration FLIR program with the M1A2 SEP V4 Abrams Upgrade and M2A5 Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrade. The briefing should also include potential courses of action for, and costs associated with, the acceleration of Third Generation FLIR development. Transport telemedicine system The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is devel-oping capabilities that would provide telemedicine and remote physiological monitoring for casualty care of deployed forces. The committee recognizes that such telemedicine capabilities can pro-vide useful reachback support for complex injuries, especially for sensitive organs where combat medics and surgeons may not have in-depth specialty training. The committee encourages the Depart-ment to continue to experiment with and examine ways to use emerging telemedicine capabilities to allow for consultation with specialty subject matter experts to provide soldiers on the battle-field with access to high-quality care for complex and difficult inju-ries. Additionally, the committee supports the idea of partnering with subject matter experts in order to provide direct, real-time consultation between geographically dispersed military and civilian medical personnel; this would support complex diagnostic and sur-gical problems, as well as allow conferencing for complicated, but less urgent, patient management decisions and virtualized training and continuing medical education. Urban warfare training The committee has continuing interest in the Department of De-fense’s ability to prepare for and operate in complex, densely popu-lated urban terrain. Recent trends reflect that the future of global violence is urban, and that the next war will likely be fought in densely populated cities. The committee is supportive of the De-partment’s ongoing efforts, but remains concerned with the lack of Army prioritization and resourcing to address these challenges. The committee is particularly concerned with the Army’s lack of re-alistic training sites that reflect the scale and density of real-world urban operating environments. The committee believes the Army should more aggressively prepare for urban warfare and explore the construction of an urban warfare training center that focuses on basic and advanced skills to fight, survive, and win in urban op-erating environments. This training should address the challenges associated with vertical, subterranean, and dense urban terrain, and the inclusion and integration of joint and interagency enablers. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2019, on the Army’s plan for urban warfare training. The report should include: (1) a description of urban warfare training requirements; (2) an overview of a plan and timeline to integrate urban warfare training within the Army; (3) an identification of costs associated with an urban warfare training program; VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

45 (4) a feasibility study on the construction of an urban warfare training center; (5) feasibility of utilizing existing private facilities and con-tracting training iterations until a final DOD facility can be con-structed; (6) any critical technology, maneuver, or mobility shortfalls asso-ciated with operating in a dense urban environment; and (7) force design impacts or considerations within the Army. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, ANDEVALUATION, NAVYItems of Special Interest Academic partnerships for undersea unmanned warfare research The budget request contained $58.0 million in PE 62747N for un-dersea warfare applied research. The committee supports the Navy’s efforts to develop the next generation of nuclear submarines and other undersea systems and capabilities. Specifically, the committee supports research, develop-ment, testing, and demonstration of maritime robotic systems that may be used for security and surveillance, inspection and survey, munitions retrieval, and environmental monitoring. The committee understands that there are additional opportuni-ties to enhance development of the next generation submarines and maritime robotics technology in the areas of autonomy, adaptive decision making, docking, 3–D imaging, energy technologies such as marine and hydrokinetic convertors, and data transfer. The com-mittee believes that university-based research and innovation cen-tered on the development of maritime robotic technology and other capabilities required for advanced undersea warfare will be essen-tial in maintaining the Navy’s competitive advantage. Therefore, the committee recommends $78.0 million, an increase of $20.0 million, in PE 62747N. Elsewhere in this title, the com-mittee notes the importance of partnerships with academia to ad-vance unmanned platforms and systems in order to maintain a competitive war fighting advantage. Artificial intelligence and computer vision technologies in Navy un-manned systems The committee has continuing interest in the Navy’s ability to le-verage artificial intelligence, machine learning, and computer vi-sion in exploitation and analysis. The committee also recognizes the increasing amounts of imagery and other sensor data that Navy unmanned undersea and unmanned surface vessels generate, and the demand this creates for additional processing, exploitation, management, and dissemination of information. The committee rec-ommends the Navy synchronize their efforts with the Under Sec-retary of Defense for Intelligence, and ensure that unmanned un-dersea and unmanned surface vessel computer vision and artificial intelligence requirements are incorporated into Project Maven and other Department of Defense research and development programs. The committee supports the Department’s initiatives to leverage commercial technology and innovative solutions to rapidly address current Department challenges, and believes the Navy can benefit from similar capabilities.

46 Briefing for the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on US Navy’s efforts to expand carrier air wing long-range strike capability The committee notes that the aircraft carrier air wing has been optimized for striking power and sortie generation and believes that it may not be configured to support the long-range strike re-quired by current and future threat systems. While the introduc-tion of the F–35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F–35C could require increased range to address necessary targets. The committee believes that several options could be used to ad-dress this issue to include developing a stealth tanker capability, improved engine technology or to develop and procure a strike ca-pability that is purposely built to strike at increased range. The committee further notes that the Navy previously desired to signifi-cantly increase the carrier air wing range with the development of the A–12 aircraft. The committee understands that the A–12 would have included a 5,000-pound internal carriage payload, stealth, and a range of 800 nautical miles. While the committee believes that requirements to support this capability remain relevant and the technology available, the development of the A–12 aircraft was mired in acquisition challenges that eventually resulted in the can-cellation of the program. While the committee further believes that the Department of Defense has successfully developed a suite of long-range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabili-ties, the committee also believes that it is vital that the Navy de-velop a carrier-based long-range strike capability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January 25, 2019, on options to expand the strike range of a carrier air wing in a con-tested environment, including manned and unmanned capabilities, and, Department of the Navy capabilities it plans to pursue in the Next Generation Air Dominance capability. Briefing on Navy support for research into autonomous systems The committee is aware of the Robotarium, a laboratory hosted at the Georgia Institute of Technology, sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), where researchers conduct experiments with interconnected, heterogeneous unmanned ground and aerial systems. The committee is supportive of competitively awarded grant programs that enhance academia’s ability to conduct complex experiments with autonomous systems. As the role of autonomous systems in operations is expected to grow, the Committee believes it will be increasingly important for ONR to continue to fund initia-tives that prepare future engineers to conduct cutting edge re-search in this discipline, especially with different classes of autono-mous systems including unmanned underwater vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles operating simulta-neously across multiple domains. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of ONR to brief the House Committee on Armed Serv-ices by November 1, 2018, on initiatives that enhance the ability of academia to conduct complex experiments with autonomous sys-tems. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

47 Briefing on ongoing engine noise reduction efforts The Committee continues to support ongoing efforts to reduce en-gine noise from the F–414 engine on the F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet and E/A–18 G Growler. Attachments, known as chevrons, could reduce the noise associ-ated with operations of these aircraft. A reduction in engine noise would benefit sailors working in close proximity to the aircraft, particularly on the carrier deck, and communities near installa-tions home to these squadrons. Having received the briefing required by the House Report to the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, the com-mittee is aware that the Navy may be requesting authority to re-program Fiscal Year 2018 funding in order to engineer, manufac-ture, proof and test redesigned chevrons. The Committee supports such a request, provided the funding source is a program with unexecutable funds. The Committee is aware that these funds would be used to de-velop an improved chevron design which could achieve significant noise reduction at full military power. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the House Committee on Armed Services no later than September 30, 2018 on engineering plans for Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019 and potential applications of chevron designs to additional aircraft. Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services The committee acknowledges the Navy’s efforts to modernize the functions of its existing command, control, communications, com-puters, and intelligence network systems through Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) installation. The committee recognizes that, through CANES, the Navy seeks to build a more responsive and adaptable information technology plat-form by creating a common computing environment that will in-crease capabilities, address cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and lower sustainment costs across the fleet. Therefore, the committee con-tinues to support full deployment of CANES, as scheduled, to en-sure the Navy’s networking environment remains adequately equipped for information warfare. Defense University Research Instrumentation Program The budget request contained $119.4 million in PE 61103N for University Research Initiatives. The Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP), administered by the Office of Naval Research, provides academic institutions conducting research for the Department of Defense the ability to acquire the necessary infrastructure to sup-port high-quality research. Additionally, the instrumentation devel-oped and acquired through the DURIP process ensures that the next generation of scientists and engineers are trained with cut-ting-edge capabilities for the defense science and technology work-force. The committee understands there is additional opportunity for the Navy to facilitate research in an area of interest to the Navy through the DURIP program. Therefore, the committee recommends $129.4 million, an in-crease of $10.0 million, in PE 61103N, to support the acquisition VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

48 of infrastructure required by universities to conduct cutting-edge Navy research. Directed energy and non-lethal weapons technology policy and guid-ance The budget request contained $27.6 million in PE 63851M for Joint Non-Lethal Weapons testing. The committee continues to support the Department of Defense’s efforts to develop non-lethal technologies as a materiel solution to provide military commanders with a non-lethal capability to protect military bases, security perimeters, and other secured spaces. The committee acknowledges the importance of these technologies as a force multiplier that gives service members more options, and mini-mizes civilian casualties and collateral damage. Recent develop-ment efforts of High Power Radio Frequency directed energy tech-nologies have advanced these weapons to a maturity that can be used globally by the military services and combatant commands to stop vehicles, vessels, and other systems. The committee is con-cerned that the lack of policy, strategy, and guidance for employ-ment of these non-lethal weapons has limited the potential benefits of deploying these technologies for use more broadly across the combatant commands. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2018, on the future strategy for non-lethal weapons, including development of appropriate policy and guidance for em-ployment. The briefing should also describe the current organiza-tional structure of the non-lethal weapons program and consider the assignment of a joint proponent for non-lethal weapons who would be responsible for coordinating command requirements, fa-cilitating policy development, and setting conditions for further in-tegration of these capabilities. The committee recommends $32.6 million, an increase of $5.0 million, in PE 63851M for the Non-Lethal Weapons program. E2–D Advanced Hawkeye Identification Friend or Foe The budget request contained $223.6 million for the E–2D Ad-vanced Hawkeye program. The committee notes that the E–2D Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Interrogation System has certain limitations at long range. These limitations affect the ability of the crewmembers to identify threats at range, reducing critical time to react. The committee also notes that applying meta-materials to the E–2D IFF system may improve the E–2D IFF range detection and overall ability of the fleet to react against distant threats. The committee recommends $225.6 million, an increase of $2.0 million, for the E–2D Advanced Hawkeye program. Joint Air-to-Ground Missile for fixed wing aircraft (JAGM–F) inte-gration The committee notes the Department of the Navy, with the even-tual retirement of the Maverick missile has similar requirements as the Air Force for Joint Air-to-Ground Fixed (JAGM–F) missile on its AV–8B Harrier, F/A–18C/D/E/F Hornet, and F–35B/C air-craft. JAGM–F is an improvement to the Army’s JAGM which will VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

49 allow the missile to be eject-launched from fixed-wing aircraft to eliminate time sensitive moving targets and high value covered/ sheltered and armored targets. The committee understands JAGM– F will be able to combat adverse weather, low visibility and austere communication environments on land and at sea while engaging multiple targets near simultaneously in multiple engagement modes. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 8, 2019 that provides potential options for accelerating Navy and Marine Corps efforts with respect to integrating JAGM on fixed-wing aircraft. Marine Corps Group 5-class unmanned aircraft development The budget request contained $25.3 million in PE 34240M for de-velopment of advanced tactical unmanned aircraft system capabili-ties. The committee understands that the Marine Corps plans to de-velop a medium- to large-sized, long-range, medium-altitude, multi- mission, unmanned aircraft system that can persist and survive in an anti-access, area-denial contingency environment. The com-mittee is also aware of multiple capabilities and platforms across joint-service portfolios that could likely mitigate, if not eliminate, the capability gaps and shortfalls identified in the Marine Corps’ Initial Capabilities Document, from August 10, 2016, ‘‘Marine Air Ground Task Force Unmanned Aircraft System Expeditionary Ca-pabilities.’’ The committee believes the Marine Corps underesti-mates the required communications, data link, launch, mission exe-cution, and recovery infrastructure, or the human capital resources required to train, operate, maintain, and sustain such a system. The Marine Corps also underestimates the necessary human cap-ital resources required to meet current deployment-to-dwell policy and guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends $10.3 million, a decrease of $15.0 million, in PE 34240M for development of advanced tac-tical unmanned aircraft system capabilities. The committee also di-rects the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than February 5, 2019, that assesses all existing or future joint-service capabilities that are similar in nature to the Marine Corps’ planned system, and includes a detailed explanation for why each of those joint-service capabilities could not mitigate or fulfill the gaps or shortfalls identified by the Marine Corps. The com-mittee also directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than Feb-ruary 5, 2019, that explains the acquisition and funding strategy of the Marine Corps to affordably develop and field an unmanned capability of this nature, and the personnel, funding, infrastruc-ture, and mission-execution resources that would be needed to via-bly sustain and support this capability. Maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities demonstration The budget request contained no funding for the MS–177A mari-time enhanced sensor demonstration program. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

50 The committee notes that the Navy has the opportunity to lever-age a $300.0 million Air Force investment in the MS–177A sensor, which is meant to improve maritime target detection and long- range imaging. This investment could significantly reduce procure-ment costs and expedite fielding. The committee is aware that U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) identified the MS–177A in its fiscal year 2018 integrated priority list for consideration. The committee believes that having an organic Navy MS–177A demonstration in the PACOM area of responsibility could help the Navy to assess the full range of anti-surface unit warfare and anti-submarine war-fare capabilities. In addition, the MS–177A would help gather needed intelligence against threats in the PACOM strategic envi-ronment. The MS–117A would improve the Navy organic capability to conduct standoff anti-surface unit warfare intelligence, surveil-lance, reconnaissance, and long-range positive identification of tar-gets. The committee recommends $23.5 million for the MS–177A mari-time enhanced sensor demonstration program. Naval underwater test ranges The committee has continuing interest in the Department of De-fense’s plan to redevelop and modernize the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range (BARSTUR). The committee report (H. Rept. 114–577) accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, directed the Navy to submit a report to the congres-sional defense committees on the plan to redevelop and modernize BARSTUR. The report was submitted on October 13, 2017. The re-port provided by the Navy noted that BARSTUR is an invaluable asset to numerous Hawaii-based and transiting subsurface, surface, and aviation platforms. The committee notes the underwater range is used extensively to conduct submarine sonar, fire control, and weapons technical and operational evaluations, and serves a crit-ical role in hosting the world’s largest international maritime war-fare exercise, Rim of the Pacific. This exercise serves as a means of promoting stability in the region and represents a unique train-ing opportunity to foster and sustain cooperative relationships that are necessary for ensuring the safety of sea lines of communication and security in the Pacific Ocean. The committee remains con-cerned about the readiness and operational status of the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range and its ability to support critical training and exercises. The committee encourages the Navy to ag-gressively sustain the modernization timeline, begin the program requirement and acquisition process, and support a competitive source selection and contract award to achieve operational capa-bility in fiscal year 2026. MQ–25 Unmanned Carrier Aviation program The budget request contained $718.9 million for the MQ–25 Un-manned Carrier Aviation program. The committee supports the Navy’s efforts to develop and field a carrier-based unmanned aerial system to provide refueling as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support to the fleet. The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations in-tends to accelerate this program by 2 years in order to provide this capability by 2026. To date, the Navy has provided insufficient air

51 vehicle justification. Budget documents state that $598.78 million will go to Air Segment Primary Hardware Development with very little further justification or cost estimates. The committee recommends a decrease of $116.9 million, for a total of $602.0 million, to procure one test article for the MQ–25 Unmanned Carrier Aviation program. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal recovery operations Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) forces require a safe, effective, and supportable means to conduct Raise, Tow, and Beach (RTB) operations. These operations entail attaching suitable lifting mechanisms to the item of interest on the sea bed (e.g., threat items, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO), salvage items), actuating the lifting mechanism to raise the item to the sea surface, and securing and/or transporting the item of interest to a safe environment for subsequent action. The committee notes that Navy desired to em-ploy the MK V Ordnance Recovery Air Bag (ORCA), a commercial- off-the-shelf (COTS) lift bag with similar lift capacity to legacy re-quirements. However, the ORCA system was never transitioned to a program of record that could replace the Mod 1 because the sys-tem experienced numerous material and design shortcomings mak-ing its continued use unacceptable without significant design modi-fications. Last year, Navy reassessed this issue and determined that the EOD Lift Balloon capability should be provided by the MK 2 MOD 2 Flotation Bladder Assembly. The committee notes that comparable capabilities exist to support this requirement including a developmental lift balloon and an automated tow coupling actu-ation system currently in limited use by EOD. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a brief to the House Armed Services Committee by October 1, 2018 that provides a comparison of the current program of record with other develop-mental efforts. Navy Next Generation Enterprise Network The committee acknowledges the Defense Information System Agency’s current role in providing network management and secu-rity to the Navy’s networks. The committee is also aware that the Navy has sought commercial sector input for modernizing its infor-mation technology services through the Navy Next Generation En-terprise Network. The committee recognizes that employing ad-vanced commercial network capabilities for end-to-end network connectivity can promote rapid innovation, lead to cost efficiencies, and enhance security capabilities. Therefore, the committee encour-ages the Department of Defense, where practicable, to take advan-tage of commercial-off-the-shelf capabilities for supporting, secur-ing, and modernizing its networks. Navy Theater Anti-Submarine Warfare prototyping The committee understands that the Navy plans to begin a Deployables Program of Record (PoR) in fiscal year 2020 which in-tends to address operational gaps in wide area undersea surveil-lance. The committee commends the Navy for conducting a robust prototyping program as a part of Theater Anti-Submarine Warfare (TASW) efforts since fiscal year 2015, which will inform future re-quirements and will produce valuable technical and operational in-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

52 formation regarding the fielding and employment of deployables ca-pabilities. However, the committee is also aware that under the current fiscal year 2020 start timeline, tested production units from the Deployable System of Systems Project effort will not be oper-ationally available until late 2022. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by August 30, 2018 as to a plan to maximize the capabili-ties that have been achieved from current prototyping efforts as well as how the Secretary intends to mitigate the operational gaps that could result because of the Deployables PoR fielding schedule. Ocular Interruption System The Committee is aware the Marine Corps’ new Ocular Interrup-tion System, which will replace the current decades-old system, represents a materiel solution providing personnel a single, non-le-thal hail and warning capability applicable across the range of military operations where the objective is to minimize civilian cas-ualties and limit collateral damage. The Committee is concerned with the budget request’s proposed reduction of the Marine Corps Approved Acquisition Objective (AAO) requirement of 1,758 units from the previously stated goal of 1,848 units, and the delay of Full Operational Capability (FOC) until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. The Committee is further concerned that the AAO require-ment and the FOC timeline may have been altered without an as-sociated change in requirements. Therefore, the Committee directs the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide a briefing, not later than September 1, 2018, to the House Armed Services Com-mittee on a plan to potentially fulfill its original AAO requirement of 1,848 units. This briefing shall include to planned delivery order schedule, pricing per unit, and fielding schedule. Passive rocket propelled grenade armor protection technology The committee notes there have been significant improvements in passive rocket propelled grenade (RPG) armor protection over legacy RPG armor systems, which are heavy and cumbersome, and present form, fit, and function constraints, particularly for Marine Corps ground combat tactical vehicle fleets operating in expedi-tionary environments. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to consider lightweight RPG armor solutions that provide protection against RPG attacks while maintaining the ability to fold flat against the vehicle to allow for rapid deployment and transport from amphibious ships and aircraft. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2019, on the testing, evaluation, and integration of lightweight, textile, and flexible RPG armor solutions that provide protection against RPG attacks, while maintaining the ability to fold flat against the vehicle to allow for rapid deployment and transport from amphibious ships and aircraft. Small Business Innovation Research—Automated Test and Retest Program The committee recognizes the Small Business Innovation Re-search (SBIR) program is a valuable tool to engage small business and provide a pathway for innovators to conduct business with the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

53 Department of Defense. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–81), Section 5001, also known as the SBIR/ STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, mandates that agencies, to the greatest extent practicable, shall issue Phase III awards to the SBIR award recipients that developed the technology. The com-mittee is aware that the technology developed for the Automated Test and Retest Program has demonstrated success that has led to an enterprise-wide approach, and offers cost savings over current efforts. The committee encourages the Navy to continue to support SBIR award recipients to the greatest extent practicable for any Phase III awards associated with the Automated Test and Retest Program. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, no later than 31 January 2019, to provide to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, a briefing on the Auto-mated Test and Retest Program. The briefing should include an overview of SBIR award recipients associated with this program, the Navy’s methodology and process for considering SBIR Phase III awards, and a plan detailing how the Navy’s Automated Test and Retest program will comply with the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 for future contract awards. TH–57 follow-on training system The budget request contained no funds in PE 63208N for the TH–57 follow-on training system program. The committee notes that the Department of the Navy procured the TH–57B and TH–57C helicopters used to train Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and foreign military partners between Novem-ber 1981 and December 1985. The committee further notes that budget justification materials submitted with the budget request for fiscal year 2019 describe the TH–57 training system as experi-encing obsolescence, diminishing manufacturing sources and mate-rial shortages, and increasingly expensive operating costs relating to aging aircraft issues. The committee understands that this situa-tion results in potential pilot training shortfalls that will have a negative impact on readiness. Accordingly, the committee believes the Department of the Navy should accelerate the program to procure a follow-on system to re-place the TH–57B and TH–57C helicopters. The committee rec-ommends $1.0 million in PE 63208N for this purpose. U.S. Navy MH–60R helicopter antisubmarine warfare and aircraft health monitoring The committee understands the U.S. Navy operates a fleet of Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) equipped MH–60R helicopters. The committee notes the MH–60R is fitted with advanced mission sys-tems and sensors that are capable of detecting and engaging mod-ern submarines in littoral and open ocean scenarios. However, the committee understands that the current ASW sonobuoy receiver is heavy and limited to its specific mission of receiving and transmit-ting data to and from U.S. Navy sonobuoy fields for analysis through acoustic processors. The committee is aware that new Size Weight and Power (SWaP) receiver technology currently being used on the DDG–51 that could provide the Navy with enhanced capability while also reducing VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

54 weight on the MH–60R by over forty pounds. Additionally, the com-mittee understands that the new receiver has the capability to in-tegrate a Next Generation Health Monitoring System (NGHMS), which has the potential to replace the current HUMS system on the aircraft, saving an additional fifty pounds of critical weight. The committee is also aware the U.S. Army is currently conducting demonstrations of NGHMS on the UH–72 Lakota light utility heli-copter. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, or his designee, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 28, 2018 that provides operational details of the DDG–51 SWaP receiver to include capabilities, any challenges as-sociated with integration with NGHMS and subsequently onto the MH–60R platform. The briefing should also include a notional plan for testing this technology as well as a notional acquisition strat-egy. Warfighter safety and performance The budget request contained $56.2 million in PE 62236N for Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee notes that this program has been instrumental in technology efforts to improve warfighter safety, prevent occupa-tional injury in hazardous, deployed areas, and minimize the ef-fects of extreme environments. The committee believes additional research focused on the safety, performance, and resilience of Navy divers can further reduce risk during dangerous missions in ad-verse conditions. Research areas that warrant additional focus in-clude studies on decompression sickness, oxygen toxicity, optimiza-tion of diver performance, and assessment of the impact of thermal stress. This research can also illuminate human performance char-acteristics and technologies that have implications across a much larger set of mission-relevant performance calculations. The committee recommends $56.2 million, the amount requested, in PE 62236N for Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, ANDEVALUATION, AIRFORCEItems of Special Interest Academic and industrial partnerships for aerospace materials The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 63680F for the manufacturing technology program. The Air Force has been studying materials for advanced aero-space needs to enhance lethality and survivability in accordance with the 2018 National Defense Strategy. The committee under-stands developing and manufacturing advanced materials can be challenging, and that opportunity may exist for the Air Force Re-search Laboratory to leverage existing relationships, and form new partnerships, with higher education and industrial partners in the Manufacturing Technology Program to better understand these challenges. Specifically, the committee believes greater leveraging of software and simulation tools to assess new machining, com-posite manufacturing, casting, and additive manufacturing tech-nologies being developed by original equipment manufacturers, will VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

55 ultimately improve advanced material development and manufac-turing. Therefore, the committee recommends $47.0 million, an increase of $5.0 million, in PE 63680F to develop advanced materials and increase advanced materials manufacturing through academic and industrial partnerships to better support aerospace needs. Academic partnerships for modeling, design, and analysis of un-manned air platforms The budget request contained $190.9 million in PE 62203F for aerospace propulsion research and development. The committee is aware that the Air Force performs a wide range of advanced research and engineering in multi-disciplinary design for unmanned air platforms. Further, the committee recog-nizes that advanced modeling and design, as well as quicker com-parative analyses, are beneficial to this effort. The committee be-lieves that academia is well-suited to partner with the Air Force on modeling, design, and comparative analysis through the use of Educational Partnership Agreements, which are mutually bene-ficial agreements that may also enhance the Air Force’s effort to re-cruit a diverse and educated workforce. Therefore, the committee recommends $195.9 million, an in-crease of $5.0 million, in PE 62203F for Educational Partnership Agreements for unmanned platforms. Elsewhere in this title, the committee notes the importance of partnerships with academia to advance unmanned platforms and systems in order to maintain a competitive war fighting advantage. Advanced engine development program The budget request contained $1.2 billion in PE 64858F for tech-nology transition programs, of which $790.4 million was included for the advanced engine development project. The advanced engine development project enables demonstration of advanced turbine engine prototypes. The committee notes that the main effort in this project is the adaptive engine transition pro-gram, which is maturing fuel-efficient adaptive engine component technologies and reducing associated risk in preparation for next- generation propulsion system development for multiple combat air-craft applications. The committee understands that adaptive engine technology enables next generation combat aircraft capabilities by combining the efficiency of high-bypass turbofans used by commer-cial airlines with the performance demanded of military fighter en-gines. This technology has undergone initial development through the adaptive engine technology and adaptive engine technology demonstrator programs, which the committee has supported in past years. The committee believes that both legacy aircraft and fu-ture aircraft can benefit from this capability and technology. There-fore, the committee encourages the Department of the Air Force to continue to make the necessary investments in these critical tech-nology demonstrations and engine developments to ensure oper-ational capability is achieved at the earliest opportunity. The committee recommends $790.4 million, the full amount re-quested, in PE 64858F in order to continue the advanced engine development project, and further encourages the Department of De-fense to consider early initiation of development programs aimed at

56 transitioning advanced engines into the field for both legacy and future combat weapon systems. Advanced pilot training program The budget request contained $265.5 million in PE 65223F for the advanced pilot training (APT) program. The APT program will replace the Air Education Training Command’s aging T–38C fleet with new aircraft, a ground-based training system, a maintenance training system, and support infrastructure currently used in the fighter/bomber advanced Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training track, as well as in the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals pro-gram. The committee continues to view the APT program as a critical program to replace the aging T–38C aircraft in order to train stu-dent pilots in an advanced training aircraft so they can make a more effective transition to fifth-generation combat aircraft upon graduation from undergraduate pilot training. The committee notes that for fiscal year 2018, contract award had been planned for late 2017, and has now been delayed until the summer of 2018. If the delay in contract award extends beyond the summer of 2018, the committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a brief-ing to the House Committee on Armed Services within 30 days of the delay announcement, detailing the reasons for further delay, impact on aircraft delivery, and efforts to mitigate the delay so that initial and full operational capability remains on schedule. The committee recommends $265.5 million, the full amount re-quested, in PE 64233F to continue the APT program. The com-mittee also expects the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services directed in the committee report (H. Rept. 115–200) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, on potential op-tions to accelerate the APT program, subsequent to contract award. Advanced radar threat system emitters The budget request contained $35.9 million in PE 64735F for De-partment of the Air Force combat training range development, of which $34.8 million was included for development of a family of ad-vanced radar threat system (ARTS) emitters. The ARTS programs develop, design, build, and test threat system simulators based on advanced foreign-fielded surface-to-air missile (SAM) radar threat systems. ARTS will be used at Department of Defense training ranges for fourth- and fifth-generation aircrew training and tactics development to increase combat effectiveness and aircrew surviv-ability by training aircrews to engage or defend against an ad-vanced SAM threat before encountering it in actual combat to stress their tactics, techniques, and procedures. The committee understands that ARTS radars would add mod-ern, high-fidelity threat training devices to the ranges that are ca-pable of interacting with fifth-generation sensor-fusion tech-nologies. During a visit to Hill Air Force Base, Utah, in April 2018, F–35A pilots briefed committee members that current training ranges are not equipped with the threat radars necessary to pro-vide the most effective training for F–35 pilots, and the committee believes that the ARTS emitter programs should be accelerated. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

57 Accordingly, the committee recommends $62.9 million in PE 64735F for Air Force combat training range development, an in-crease of $27.0 million, to accelerate the ARTS emitter programs, and understands that this amount is executable in fiscal year 2019. Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generators The Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator project develops and demonstrates core engine technologies to address the growing need for affordable small turbofans utilized in current and future 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 con-sumption to increase range. It will also pave the way for providing much needed competition where there currently is none. The com-mittee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than Feb-ruary 15, 2019, on Department of the Air Force plans to fund tech-nologies which lead to low cost, high performance turbofan engines of up to 1,200 pounds of thrust. Aerospace composite structures manufacturing The budget request contained $42.0 million in PE 63680F for the Air Force manufacturing technology program. Of this amount, $30.1 million was requested for advanced manufacturing tech-nology, including agile manufacturing capabilities. The committee believes that manufacturing technology related to cost reduction for aerospace composite structures is a particularly important part of this overall effort. Specifically, the committee en-courages work on production cost reduction methods, low-cost tool-ing, and agile manufacturing technologies to enable future Air Force unmanned systems requirements to be achieved at an afford-able cost. The committee recommends $42.0 million, the full amount re-quested, in PE 63680F for the Air Force manufacturing technology program. Air Force test and evaluation support The budget request contained $692.8 million in PE 65807F for Department of the Air Force test and evaluation support. The com-mittee notes that this amount is $14.5 million, or about 2 percent, higher than the budget request for fiscal year 2018. The committee also notes that test facilities, capabilities, and resources operated through this program include wind tunnels, rocket and jet engine test cells, armament test ranges, civilian payroll, and contractor services. In the committee report (H. Rept. 115–200) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, the com-mittee reported on a briefing it received on a comprehensive assess-ment of Major Range and Test Facility Base needs and investments to meet the testing required for fifth- and sixth-generation aircraft and air armament, including hypersonic strike weapons. The com-mittee noted that among its findings were that fifth- and sixth-gen-eration aircraft and weapons introduce test and evaluation gaps, and that significant research and development and operations and support investments are required to fill those gaps. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

58 For fiscal year 2018, Department of the Air Force officials in-formed the committee that funding for test and evaluation support is about $30.0 million below its historical norms, and that this funding erosion has diminished the ability of the Air Force Test and Evaluation (T&E) enterprise to support T&E of next-genera-tion capabilities in the near term. Since the budget request for fis-cal year 2019 would only provide an inflation increase over the pre-vious year, the committee believes that the budget request for fis-cal year 2019 is also about $30.0 million below historical norms. Consequently, the committee recommends $724.7 million in PE 65807F for Air Force test and evaluation support, an increase of $31.9 million, to provide improved open-air range test capabilities on a timeline that supports the Air Force’s roles in the develop-ment of next-generation platforms and air armament, and address-es the growing range challenges. Air Operations Center software modernization utilizing agile devel-opment software processes The budget request contained $106.1 million in PE 27410F for the Air and Space Operations Center (AOC), of which, $97.6 mil-lion is for development of applications and software for the AOC utilizing agile software development and operations (Ag DevOps) techniques. The committee is disappointed in the past attempt to modernize and upgrade AOC capability through the AOC 10.2 program and the waste of fiscal resources that occurred as a result of AOC 10.2 program termination. The committee is concerned by the Air Force’s lack of knowledge regarding contractual insights and cost data, the inability to explain cost-estimation tools and planning considerations necessary to formulate budgets, and how the Air Force values the goods and services received for the resources ex-pended. Therefore, the committee recommends $79.6 million in PE 27410F, a decrease of $26.5 million, for development of applications and software for the AOC utilizing Ag DevOps techniques. The committee also includes a provision elsewhere in this title that would provide the Secretary of the Air Force 25 percent of author-ized funding recommended until the Secretary provides a report to the congressional defense committees on software development cost-estimation tools needed to develop ‘‘should-cost’’ models, infor-mation regarding costs incurred to date for software development, and a sufficiency review of the report by the Department of De-fense Director, Defense Pricing and Acquisition Policy office prior to submitting the report to Congress. Autonomous life support system The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63456F for human effectiveness advanced technology development, but in-cluded no funds for an autonomous life support system (ALSS). An ALSS is a system in development that would monitor the physio-logic state, respiratory profile, and environmental conditions of a pilot in a fighter or training aircraft. It automatically adjusts to the pilot’s physiologic demands, thereby diminishing the prospect that a pilot would be subjected to a physiological episode resulting from an inadequate supply of oxygen. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

59 A National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) report conducted by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, dated Sep-tember 14, 2017, on F/A–18 and EA–18 fleet physiological episodes, recommended the development of systems that would monitor a pi-lot’s physiologic state. The committee understands that the Air Force’s 711th Human Performance Wing is pursuing a cooperative research and development agreement with a contractor to develop an ALSS that includes capabilities for monitoring inhaled and ex-haled gas. The committee further understands that the scope of funded work should also include the monitoring of pilot physiology for heart rate, pulse or tissue oxygenation, and estimated core tem-perature, and that an increase in funds for this purpose would ac-celerate the development of an ALSS. Consequently, the committee recommends $46.5 million, an in-crease of $10.0 million, in PE 63456F. Education and outreach for anti-tampering and cybersecurity re-search The committee recognizes the role that anti-tampering tech-nology plays in safeguarding U.S. military weapon systems from theft, reverse engineering, and exploitation. The committee ac-knowledges and supports the Air Force’s highly focused efforts to grow technological advances in this area. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to fully fund programs that support anti-tampering research and development. Furthermore, the committee encourages the Department to leverage talent from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that have a proven track record of excellence in this particular field. The com-mittee recognizes the vital contributions that HBCUs have made in supporting defense readiness and national security priorities through successful research initiatives. F–15 ALQ–128 electronic warfare warning set The budget request contained $192.9 million in PE 27134F for development of F–15 systems, but included no funds for develop-ment of the ALQ–128 electronic warfare warning set (EWWS). The ALQ–128 EWWS is a countermeasures receiver used on the F–15C, D, and E aircraft. The ALQ–128, used in concert with other sys-tems, provides active jamming against enemy radar threats. The committee notes that with the fielding of upgraded active electronically scanned array radars on the F–15 fleet, the aircraft’s automatic electronic warfare warning countermeasures and active jamming capability was lost because the legacy ALQ–128 EWWS is not compatible with the new antennas and cannot be upgraded. The committee understands that an ALQ–128 development pro-gram to re-design the ALQ–128 would regain the lost warfighter capability to provide active jamming against enemy radar threats, and is necessary to provide an expandable and upgradeable system to meet mission requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $242.9 million, an in-crease of $50.0 million, in PE 27134F for development of the ALQ– 128 EWWS. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

60 F–35 follow-on development The committee notes that the F–35 program has accomplished the final developmental test flight of the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase of the program on April 11, 2018. While the SDD required flight test is now complete, the committee further notes that flight testing continues in support of phased ca-pability improvements and modernization of the F–35 air system in an effort formerly known as block four and now known as contin-uous capability development and delivery (C2D2). The C2D2 pro-gram will provide timely, affordable incremental warfighting capa-bility improvements to maintain joint air dominance against evolv-ing threats to the United States and its allies. Section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fis-cal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) directed the Secretary of De-fense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees that contains the basic elements of an acquisition baseline for the F–35 block four program. However, the report delivered in January 2018 provided only an initial insight into the basic elements of the F–35 C2D2 program. The committee understands that a complete report is planned to be submitted in March 2019, and believes that the basic elements of an acquisition baseline are vital to the ability of the committee to conduct its oversight responsibilities of a sig-nificant F–35 modernization budget. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision that would limit the obligation of funds for the F–35 C2D2 program until the Secretary of Defense submits the complete report required by section 224(b) of Public Law 114–328. The committee also notes that in its annual report on the F–35 program, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation assessed that the F–35 C2D2 schedule was not executable due to insufficient test resources, including an inadequate number of test aircraft con-figured to conduct C2D2 test flight activity. Accordingly, the com-mittee believes the Department should procure an additional six new test aircraft, two in each of the F–35A, F–35B, and F–35C con-figuration, to support the C2D2 program so that capability im-provements and modernization can be more rapidly developed and procured to meet evolving threats. Metals Affordability Initiative The budget requested contained $37.9 million in PE 63112F for Advanced Materials for Weapons System. The committee recognizes the importance of this program in pro-viding affordable materials and manufacturing technologies across the entire life-cycle of aerospace materials. Specifically, the Air Force Research Lab-managed Metals Affordability Initiative has re-duced metallic aircraft component costs and accelerated the imple-mentation and transfer of technologies across a wide range of air-craft platforms. The committee notes the value of this public-pri-vate partnership and the risk sharing model that has directly led to a nearly $2.4 billion return on the U.S. Government’s invest-ment. The committee recommends the Secretary of the Air Force create a dedicated funding line for the Metals Affordability Initia-tive to show the Air Force’s clear commitment to this program. The committee recommends $47.9 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63112F for Advanced Materials for Weapons System.

61 Passive ground-based imaging of space objects The committee is aware of the progress with ground-based space imaging experiments being made by the Air Force Research Lab-oratory’s (AFRL) Joint United States-United Kingdom Research Team. The committee recognizes the potential for high resolution imaging of geosynchronous satellites that also supports the AFRL Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education goals. The committee is also aware of positive initial test results and additional ground based experiments using full scale baseline separations of over 100 meters between the tracking telescopes. The committee recommends the AFRL continue ground-based space imaging experimentation with passive/unobtrusive optical ampli-tude interferometry imaging in combination with other surveillance systems for Department of Defense applications. Precision metrology tools The budget request contained $125.3 million in PE 62102F for materials research and development. The committee recognizes that metrology, or the development of precise measurement tools, is an important aspect of materials re-search. As the ability to manipulate materials at the subatomic scale, and to generate new and novel materials from computational design, continues to advance, it will also require further develop-ment of precision measuring tools. The committee encourages the Air Force to explore new and innovative methods to develop and provision for these tools, including through public-private partner-ships to field and maintain cutting-edge metrology systems. Therefore, the committee recommends $128.3 million, an in-crease of $3.0 million, in PE 62102F to support the development of advanced, precision metrology tools. Recapitalization of Battle-Management, Command and Control, and associated intelligence capabilities in support of ground forces The budget request contained no funds in PE 37581F for the Joint Surveillance Target and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) Re-capitalization (Recap) program, and $14.9 million for research and development, and $9.9 million for procurement activities related to the legacy E–8C JSTARS program. The committee is concerned and disagrees with the Air Force’s decision to terminate the JSTARS Recap program. While the com-mittee understands the Air Force’s desire to transition to a new ‘‘family of systems’’ concept for providing intelligence to the Joint Force, it believes that the proposed plan involves significant risk in terms of technology development, integration, cost, and schedule, and therefore the termination of the JSTARS Recap program is un-warranted and will create a significant gap in overall ISR capa-bility and capacity. While the Air Force claims to have accounted for such risks in its decision, the committee does not believe it is appropriate to accept these risks given the importance of this mis-sion area to the Joint Force. In addition, the committee notes that the Air Force’s decision on the JSTARS Recap program directly contradicts numerous Department of Defense analyses, and senior- officials’ testimony provided to Congress regarding requirements, capabilities, war-gaming, and affordability that justified the exist-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

62 ence and execution of the JSTARS Recap program, as recently as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget request. Further, the committee is also concerned that the Air Force’s de-cision could impose an unacceptable level of risk to joint ground forces that will rely heavily upon JSTARS Recap to provide reli-able, consistent, accurate, and highly integrated Battle-Manage-ment, Command and Control, and Ground Moving Target Indicator intelligence capabilities. Finally, the committee believes that the Air Force’s decision did not take into account the significantly im-proved capabilities and increased capacity that the JSTARS Recap aircraft, utilizing a modern aircraft design with fifth-generation radar technology and integrated software processing, is currently designed to bring to the battlefield as compared to the current fleet of legacy E–8C aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends $623.0 million, an in-crease of $623.0 million, in PE 37581F to fund the JSTARS Recap program’s continued development. The committee also includes a provision elsewhere in this title that addresses this program. Reusable hypersonic vehicle structure development The budget request contained $130.5 million in PE 62201F, and $125.4 million in PE 62102F for aerospace vehicle technologies and materials. The committee supports the Department of Defense’s ef-forts to accelerate the testing and development of hypersonic vehi-cles. The committee believes further investment in the development of economically efficient reusable hypersonic systems will extend national defense capabilities beyond the limits of expendable sys-tems. Additional reusable hypersonic vehicle structure development and thermal protection system development is necessary to enable rapid global response to threats, and extend the survivability of platforms in highly contested environments. Further research fo-cused on ceramic matrix components, fabrication, assembly, and full-scale component testing is necessary in order to meet the Air Force’s fiscal year 2019 test bed vehicle operations goals. The com-mittee recommends $140.5 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 62201F and $135.34 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 62102F for aerospace vehicle technologies and materials, to accel-erate the development of reusable and air-launched hypersonic ve-hicle structures. Robust aircraft electrical power and thermal management systems The budget request contained $115.5 million in PE 63216F and $190.9 million in PE 62203F for the development and demonstra-tion of electrical power, thermal management, and distribution for aerospace applications. The committee recognizes the Air Force is highly focused on de-veloping directed energy and laser weapons systems, both for self- protection and to provide offensive capability for future aircraft. In order to meet those goals, the Air Force will not just need a lasing system and optics with the size and weight to be incorporated into aircraft-sized systems, but it will also need an end-to-end power generation system that can meet all of these new power demands in addition to all of the other electrical and avionics subsystems on these aircraft. The committee encourages the Air Force to focus de-velopmental work on the aerospace electrical power for lightweight VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

63 and efficient power technologies needed for those future aircraft concepts. Therefore, the committee recommends $125.5 million, an in-crease of $10.0 million, in PE 63216F, and $195.9 million, an in-crease of $5.0 million, in PE 62203F, to accelerate design, fabrica-tion, and testing to support a light-weight, robust electrical power and thermal management system for future aircraft needs. Secure-live-virtual-constructive advanced training environment The budget request included $112.5 million in PE 62202F for Human Effectiveness Applied Research, a program element that in-cludes learning and operational readiness. The committee notes that this project supports research on the application of cognitive science for performance improvement by en-hancing training in mission-relevant environments. This includes advanced technology demonstrations for a secure live-virtual-con-structive advanced training environment and live-virtual-construc-tive cockpit technologies. The committee recognizes the important advances that have resulted from this particular technology dem-onstration since its inception in 2015, and looks forward to a joint services proof of concept demonstration, as well as accelerated encryption and waveform development. As the U.S. Air Force con-tinues to seek ways to leverage cutting-edge technologies in real-istic training and improve mission readiness, the committee is in-terested in ensuring the joint interoperability of this technology in fifth generation aircraft. The committee recommends $112.5 million, the full amount re-quested, in PE 62202F for Human Effectiveness Applied Research. Small diameter bomb II cost reduction initiative The committee understands the small diameter bomb increment II (SDB II) is a joint program between the Air Force and Navy. The SDB II can be used on every tactical fixed-wing aircraft platform and provides the warfighter the capability to attack mobile targets from stand-off ranges, through inclement weather and adverse con-ditions. The committee notes that since the award of the initial production contract the cost of an all up round (AUR) has increased largely as a result of lower-than-expected quantities of the tri-mode seeker that is currently used on SDB II for other precision guided munition programs. The committee is concerned that this could negatively impact potential planned procurement of SDB IIs in the out-years, and as a result could delay SDB II fielding when the program is scheduled to increase production. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to ex-amine implementing potential cost reduction efforts to address ris-ing AUR costs related to the tri-mode seeker at this early stage of SDB II production in order to maximize return on investment for the Department of Defense and the taxpayer. Technology Transition Program The budget request contained $1.2 billion in PE 64858F for the Technology Transition Program. The committee commends the program’s efforts to accelerate and transition technologies and prototypes into acquisition programs of record and operational use. The committee notes a majority of the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

64 funds are allocated towards advanced engine development and prototyping, and is concerned that only $87.2 million is allocated for experimentation with other technologies. The investment in non-engine technologies is insufficient to address the critical tech-nology and development required to transition systems-of-systems research, mixing low-tech and high-tech assets in a combat-effec-tive framework, and scalable and additive manufacturing solutions. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 64858F for non-engine technology experimentation and competi-tively awarded transition programs within the Technology Transi-tion Program. Wide-area motion imagery intelligence capability The budget request contained $175.3 million in PE 35206F for development of airborne reconnaissance systems, but contained no funding for continued development and modernization of wide-area motion imagery (WAMI) beyond line-of sight (BLOS) capabilities. The committee notes that persistent, near real-time day and night WAMI capability is considered by operational commanders to be a critical BLOS intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability for numerous combat units. WAMI capability has been deployed in support of combat operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan since 2010 and in the Republic of Iraq since 2015; however, despite the invaluable capability that WAMI provides, the Air Force has only been able to provide four steady-state un-manned aircraft system lines of WAMI capability. The committee understands that 2 years ago, the Department of Defense validated a U.S. Central Command Joint Urgent Operational Need State-ment that requires the further development and procurement of WAMI BLOS capabilities for forward-deployed operations. The committee notes that previous funding has resulted in preliminary multi-intelligence fusion capabilities, near-vertical-direction find-ing, and enhanced BLOS capabilities. However, a lack of fiscal year 2019 funding will impede final delivery of these capabilities, and will prevent necessary sensor system upgrades to satisfy validated warfighter requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends $186.1 million in PE 35206F, an increase of $10.8 million, for development of WAMI BLOS sensor improvements, and to continue processing and ex-ploiting improvements that would enable automated multi-intel-ligence sensor fusion. Wind energy development radar mitigation efforts The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 35114F for the Air Traffic Control, Approach, and Landing System. The committee understands the growing importance of renewable energy as a national security imperative, in particular the rapid ex-pansion of wind energy as an alternative energy source. The com-mittee also recognizes the potential impact of wind energy develop-ment on the operational readiness, training activities, safety, and force protection of Department of Defense service members, air-craft, and installations. Given the expected increase in the U.S. wind energy development, mitigation approaches must be further developed and accelerated. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

65 The committee recommends that the U.S. Government and in-dustry continue to evaluate the impacts of existing and planned wind energy developments in coordination with the Federal Inter-agency Wind Turbine Radar Impact Mitigation Working Group, and develop best practices for radar mitigation strategies. The com-mittee is aware of an existing pilot program by the U.S. Transpor-tation Command and Air Mobility Command to integrate gap-filler radar systems into their air traffic control operations to mitigate the impact of wind energy developments. This mitigation pilot pro-gram has reduced false target alerts and improved the situational awareness of air traffic control operators and the safety of aircrew. The committee recommends additional analysis to assess the feasi-bility and development requirements associated with the integra-tion, operation, and performance of gap-fill radars integrated into existing air traffic command and control systems. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 31, 2018, on the status of the pilot mitiga-tion project and strategy for developing gap-filler radar thresholds and requirements. Additionally, the committee recommends $8.8 million, an in-crease of $2.5 million, in PE 35114F for the Air Traffic Control, Ap-proach, and Landing System. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, ANDEVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDEItems of Special Interest Advanced ceramic capabilities The committee is interested in advancements in dual-use ceramic capabilities and production technologies. The committee is aware that recent advancements in smelting have significant overlap with ceramic production methods and could lower ceramic production costs. Advanced ceramic capabilities have demonstrated versatility in critical military applications, including composite armor for sol-dier and vehicle protection, and for use in advanced hypersonic ve-hicle development. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, no later November 1, 2018, to pro-vide to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Rep-resentatives a briefing on dual-use ceramic capabilities. The brief-ing should include an overview of advances in ceramic production processes and technologies, the benefits ceramic capabilities pro-vides, and any forecasted adoption of ceramic capabilities into cur-rent weapon systems. Antitoxin to combat botulinum toxin Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT/A) is a highly potent toxin, as well as a medical therapy with numerous uses in neurophysiology. The Department of Defense is managing efforts to develop a vaccine against BoNT/A; however, the potential impact of BoNT/A vaccination on future benefits of the medical uses of BoNT/ A is unknown. These benefits include treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder-associated migraines and amputation pain.

66 The committee understands that the Department is also pur-suing a small molecule antitoxin drug to combat BoNT/A, which could be used by military personnel without impacting future use of medical therapies derived from BoNT/A. Therefore, the com-mittee encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue its work to develop a monoclonal antibody-based BoNT/A antitoxin drug through the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Bio-logical Defense. Autonomous capabilities Not later than April 1, 2019, the Secretary of Defense shall sub-mit to the committee on Armed Services an assessment on the con-sequences of the international proliferation of autonomous weap-ons, including those utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning, and a strategy for U.S. engagement in international dis-cussions. In conducting such an assessment, the Secretary of De-fense shall consider each of the following: (1) An evaluation of the consequences of an arms race in autono-mous weapons, cyber weapons, artificial intelligence and machine learning, both from the domestic and competitor point of views. (2) An explanation of the of the concept of ‘‘appropriate human judgement’’ and how it differs from ‘‘meaningful human control’’. (3) An explanation of the U.S. strategy towards influencing how other nations approach autonomous weapons, including human judgement, national safety review processes, and stability concerns. Further, the study should include an assessment of the current policy guidelines with respect to the role of autonomy in offensive and defensive cyberspace operations, and a discussion of how artifi-cial intelligence and machine learning could impact current policy and doctrine. In conducting such an assessment, the Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the sufficiency of Department of Defense policies governing autonomy in cyberspace. Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program The budget request contained $258.7 million in PE 64940D8Z for the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP). The committee notes that CTEIP has been used to fund the develop-ment of critically needed, high-priority test and evaluation capabili-ties for the Department of Defense. CTEIP has used a corporate approach to combine service and Department requirements to maximize opportunities for joint efforts and avoid unwarranted du-plication of test capabilities. The committee recommends additional focus on developing a geospatial architecture to assist in the test-ing, analysis, and visualization of cyber and electronic warfare threat systems, and their impact in a radio frequency compromised environment. The committee encourages the Department to explore efforts to automate data collection and analysis capabilities, thereby reduc-ing manual data entry and expediting the preparation of products and reports. The committee recommends $258.7 million, the amount requested, in PE 64940D8Z for the Central Test and Eval-uation Investment Program. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

67 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive standoff detection The committee is aware of the enduring challenge of detecting chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) threats from a safe distance. The committee is also aware of a new technology that may be capable of dynamic wavelength modulation of laser light with potential applications in multiple mission areas, including standoff detection of CBRNE threats. Given the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic and the threat of CBRNE use in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, sensors capable of standoff detection would provide early warning, thereby increasing timelines to prepare and respond to threats. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue its efforts to develop standoff CBRNE detection. Common data environment for modeling and simulation The committee recognizes that common data environments can yield benefits, such as increased interoperability and strong mod-eling and simulation (M&S) capabilities. The committee supports continued funding for projects that provide critical Department of Defense-wide data services, such as the Army’s Enterprise Data Services Common Data Production Environment. The committee is aware that in the committee report (S. Rept. 115–125) accom-panying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, the Senate Committee on Armed Services directed the Sec-retary of Defense to take actions to identify and address data col-lection, analysis, and sharing issues that limit robust M&S. There-fore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2018, on the Department’s findings from the directive in S. Rept. 115–125. Contraband cellular devices The committee is aware that the illegal use of cellular devices in Federal prisons is on the rise. The committee is also aware that new technologies, such as managed access systems, are being de-veloped, tested, and deployed to detect the use of contraband cel-lular devices among Federal prison populations. The committee ac-knowledges that military correctional facilities are often plagued with the same ills that infiltrate Federal correctional facilities. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to study the effectiveness of new technologies that detect contraband cellular devices to identify and prevent instances of such use in military correctional facilities. Counter small tactical unmanned air systems The committee notes that Class I and II unmanned air systems (UAS), which in most cases are readily available commercial-off- the-shelf small and lightweight UAS, can be employed by state and non-state actors for use against U.S. military and civilian per-sonnel. The committee understands that current maneuver short range air defense initiatives, as well as counter-UAS initiatives would address fixed-wing, rotorcraft, and medium-to-large UAS platforms. The committee is concerned by the rapid proliferation of small UAS and believes the military services should examine all VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

68 potential combined kinetic and non-kinetic options to immediately address this perceived capability gap in organic air defense for Army Maneuver Brigades. The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 15, 2018 that provides an update on current Department of De-fense programs to counter class I and II UAS. The briefing shall include: (a) The command responsible for developing and promulgating counter-UAS performance requirements; (b) A resource plan for developing and assessing potential mate-rial solutions for near-term and mid-term timeframes; (c) How the Department of Defense intends to ensure that units at the battalion and below echelons will be capable of defeating sin-gle and swarming Class 1 and II UAVs; and (d) The procedures whereby technical assessments will be shared and coordinated with the other military services. Counter-unmanned aerial system threat detection The committee is interested in advancements in counter-un-manned aerial system (C–UAS) technology and the threat these systems pose to the Armed Forces. The committee supports ongoing efforts by the U.S. Army and U.S. Special Operations Command to develop and employ unmanned aerial system (UAS) threat detec-tion technology, and commends the services for recognizing the se-riousness of the threat. In light of recent UAS attacks in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the committee is con-cerned about the increased threat from unmanned aerial systems to forward operating bases and special operations forces personnel. The committee believes additional advancements in scalable C– UAS technologies are necessary to effectively detect, track, neu-tralize, and ensure the force protection and operational security of deployed service members. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by Octo-ber 31, 2018, on the employment of C–UAS systems. The briefing should include an assessment of the UAS threat to the Armed Forces, a roadmap for C–UAS threat detection technology and ca-pabilities, and the results of operational fielding of C–UAS sys-tems. Enhanced Maritime Biological Detection The budget request contained $145.7 million in PE 64384BP for Contamination Avoidance (CA) Engineering Manufacturing Devel-opment (EMD) within the Department of Defense Chemical and Bi-ological Defense Program (CBDP). The Enhanced Maritime Biological Detection (EMBD) program, an ongoing effort that began in fiscal year 2017, is included in CA EMD and will transition technology from the Joint United States Forces Korea Portal and Integration Threat Recognition Advanced Technology Demonstration to a program of record for the U.S. Navy. EMBD will complete development, testing, integration, and production of a lower cost biological point detection system that will detect, collect, and identify biological warfare agent aerosols, and provide automated warning at a lower sustained cost. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

69 The committee recommends $145.7 million, the amount re-quested in PE 64384BP, for CA EMD within the CBDP. Fielding of radiation detection devices The committee is encouraged by the Army’s efforts to field addi-tional radiation detection devices, and endorses the Army’s efforts in fiscal year 2019 to develop and field the next-generation Joint Personal Dosimeter Individual (JPD–I), an individual dosimeter that includes immediate visual alert, measurement of radiation dose, and inclusion of a comprehensive record of radiation exposure over a soldier’s career. The committee encourages the Army to con-duct a rigorous, fair, and open competition for this new system to ensure the best dosimeter is developed and selected. Future uses of synthetic biology The committee is aware of recent advancements in synthetic biol-ogy, genomics, biotechnology, and related novel technologies that may enhance human performance and improve traditional ap-proaches to healthcare. This includes enhancing human ability to perform through stressful and resource-limited environments, im-proving decision making, minimizing the time between disease identification and treatment, and augmenting human immune sys-tems to defeat a variety of diseases, rather than depending on spe-cific vaccines and therapeutics. The development of advanced bio-sensors to understand hypoxia is a current example of the type of human performance challenges that can be addressed through these advancements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by De-cember 1, 2018, on how the Department of Defense may leverage these advancements, when appropriate, and in accordance with ethical standards, U.S. law, our nation’s values, and Department of Defense policy, to enhance service members’ performance, increase lethality and survivability, and improve battlefield healthcare. The briefing should also identify opportunities, when appropriate and feasible, to facilitate the maturation of capabilities based on recent advancements. Historically black colleges and universities, and minority serving in-stitutions The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 61228D8Z for research work with historically black colleges and universities, and minority serving institutions (HBCU/MI). The committee recognizes the important role this program plays in bolstering the research capabilities and capacities at HBCU/MIs. Not only is such work important in meeting the defense research needs of the Department of Defense, but the committee also be-lieves it provides an added benefit by diversifying the supply of sci-entists, engineers, and researchers working on the Department of Defense’s most challenging problems. Therefore, the committee recommends $40.4 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 61228D8Z for additional research between historically black colleges and universities, and minority serving in-stitutions, as well as increased teaming opportunities between VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

70 these institutions and other research universities with experience supporting the Department’s unique requirements. Innovative installation capabilities The budget request contained $29.4 million in PE 63342D8W for the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx). DIUx supports the identification, development, and demonstra-tion of game-changing technologies to satisfy joint force priorities at a faster pace than the traditional Department of Defense plan-ning, programming, budgeting, and execution process. As DIUx leverages partnerships with academic institutions, science and technology communities, and private industries, the committee rec-ognizes the advantages that DIUx may provide to accelerate field-ing of decisive technical capabilities and interoperability while mitigating operational risk to the warfighter and promoting afford-ability. The committee supports the objective of DIUx to maintain U.S. technological superiority across the range of military operations. The committee believes DIUx should also increase efforts to sup-port technological superiority at Department installations by ad-dressing critical technological needs. This may also include mitiga-tion of cybersecurity vulnerabilities identified during the ongoing review of critical infrastructure being conducted by the Department as directed in section 1650 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). Therefore, the committee recommends prioritizing critical techno-logical needs at Department installations, and directs the Director of DIUx to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2018, on a plan to invest in the rapid inser-tion of innovative installation capabilities. Joint Regional Security Stacks The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to secure and simplify the Department’s network environment through modernization. Specifically, the committee supports contin-ued use of the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) and the mod-ernization, streamlining, and optimization of JRSS architecture to improve performance, reduce the Department’s attack surface, and eliminate outdated technical redundancy. The committee believes incorporation of next-generation technology may further increase the Department’s cybersecurity posture and resiliency. Therefore, the committee encourages the Defense Information Systems Agency to make full use of next-generation packet brokers which reduce costs by employing active-failover features, reducing redundancy of cybersecurity tools, and implementing new technology that elimi-nates duplicate network traffic. Joint threat warning system The committee recognizes that the Joint Threat Warning System (JTWS) provides credible threat warning and intelligence informa-tion to special operations forces (SOF). The committee notes that this program has been critical to enhancing the situational aware-ness of SOF elements by alerting them to threats to the force and illuminating targeting opportunities. The committee is concerned that the program does not include an air-variant precision high fre-

71 quency band capability. This gap in coverage exposes SOF opera-tors to unknown threats and decreases their situational awareness. The committee recommends U.S. Special Operations Command fur-ther explore collection capabilities that address this critical air-var-iant high frequency gap in coverage. Military Free Fall School The committee is aware of the increased demand being placed on the U.S. Army’s Military Free Fall School (MFFS). The committee understands the increased student throughput is largely a result of the expanded population of U.S. Army Special Operations Com-mand personnel who are required to attend MFFS. Consequently, the increased student throughput has resulted in shortfalls in resourcing, an over-reliance on contract personnel, and an in-creased risk to students and cadre. Therefore, the committee di-rects the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 15, 2018, on Special Operations Force Military Free Fall requirements, the funds expended, the expected cost of operating the MFFS across the Future Years Defense Program, and any change in the rate of MFFS safety incidents or injuries from fiscal years 2012 through 2018. Minerva Research Initiative The committee recognizes the valuable contributions the Minerva Research Initiative has had on social science research relevant to national security. This initiative has supported innovations in so-cial science and translated important scientific discoveries in the field of counter-terrorism and counter-violent extremism. The com-mittee believes similar research examining our peer and near-peer adversaries’ growing influence and competitive advantage against the United States is necessary. According to the National Security Strategy of 2017, the People’s Republic of China is reasserting its influence in order to deny the United States access in times of cri-sis and contest the Department of Defense’s ability to operate free-ly in decisive locations. The committee believes additional national security-related social science research dedicated towards the Rus-sian Federation, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and their export of military and security technology, will help understand these nations’ true intentions and develop and implement strategy aimed at coun-tering their influence. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than November 16, 2018, on the feasibility of expanding the Minerva Research Initiative to state actors, including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The briefing should include the pro-gram’s ability to provide substantive research addressing peer and near-peer adversary statecraft, to include, but not limited to, for-eign influence, foreign investment, emerging technologies, and mili-tary exports. National Hypersonics Initiative The committee is aware of a National Hypersonics Initiative under development by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

72 and Engineering, in conjunction with the military services, defense labs, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The committee recognizes the growing amount of resources and empha-sis placed by the Department of Defense on the research and devel-opment of hypersonic vehicle technology. The committee supports the development of a National Hypersonics Initiative, and believes it is prudent and consistent with the roles and responsibilities granted to the Department’s Joint Hypersonics Transition Office as authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 (Pub-lic Law 115–91). The committee is interested in any impact that the Treaty Between the United States of America and The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Inter-mediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, signed in 1987 and commonly referred to as the INF Treaty, is having on the research and development of hypersonic vehicle technology. The committee understands there is concern that the INF treaty obligations may limit the Department of Defense’s ability to flight-test and oper-ationally employ hypersonic vehicles. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 15, 2018, on the status of the National Hypersonics Initiative and any im-pacts of the INF Treaty obligations on the research, development, prototyping, testing, or employment of hypersonic vehicle tech-nology. National lab integration in defense innovation hubs The committee has continuing interest in the Department of De-fense laboratories and engineering centers, their responsiveness to Department of Defense requirements, and maximizing their exper-tise and reach. The Department’s laboratories are integral to the Department’s ability to retain capability in areas where the private sector has no commercial interest, and ensuring that commercial solutions are adapted for warfighter needs in a timely manner so that the United States remains dominant in the land, air, sea, space, and cyber domains. The committee recommends that the Department better enable laboratories and centers to embrace an open and innovative pos-ture, while simultaneously becoming more active in the Depart-ment’s requirements process. The committee is aware of the Army Research Lab’s Open Campus project as an example of open inno-vation that encourages groundbreaking advances in basic and ap-plied research areas through increased collaboration with the broader research enterprise. The committee believes that this serves as a model for laboratories to become more ingrained in the scientific and research communities, both locally and globally, and become a greater sensor for disruptive technologies that present op-portunities or highlight vulnerabilities for the Department. Addi-tionally, the committee recommends that the laboratories increase their presence in innovation hubs across the United States, like those established by the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, and enhance existing relationships with the Strategic Capabilities Office and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to provide a briefing to the House VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

73 Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2018, on the respective plan for further integrating the laboratories across defense and commercial innovation hubs, and maximizing their ex-pertise and reach. The briefing should include a robust plan and timeline for increasing the Department’s laboratory joint presence in innovation hubs across the United States. Non-lethal directed energy technologies The committee continues to support the need to minimize collat-eral damage, pursue all available avenues to reduce civilian casual-ties, and prevent damage to infrastructure in engagements abroad. The use of non-lethal directed energy technologies provides many opportunities to do so. Some of these technologies have matured and are already employed by military service and combatant com-mands in the operational environment across the globe. These tech-nologies have the capacity to stop ground vehicles, small vessels, and unmanned aerial vehicles from infringing upon protected spaces, or to deny access to secured facilities. The committee con-tinues to encourage the Department of Defense to make greater ef-forts to use these technologies where appropriate. Elsewhere in this report, the need for concurrent policy development, sustained inte-grated non-lethal directed energy technologies, and continued de-velopment of next-generation directed energy non-lethal tech-nologies, like the Marine Corps’ Ocular Interruption System, is ad-dressed. Protect DIB critical technologies The committee recognizes the importance of safeguarding defense industrial base (DIB) critical technologies from cyber and economic actions conducted by our adversaries. The challenge in doing so is particularly acute as supply chains become increasingly globalized, as noted in the report published by the RAND Corporation entitled ‘‘U.S. Authorities and DoD Options for Protecting the Defense In-dustrial Base from Cyber Intrusions and Economic Enticement, In-fluence, and Control.’’ The report calls attention to the difficulties in protecting DIB members with supply chains in foreign countries and the resulting risks to the integrity of various critical tech-nologies and materials. Therefore, the committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (R&E) to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee no later than 1 March 2019 on activities and investments the Department is making with respect to foreign suppliers of critical technologies to national defense to ensure their integrity, including microelectronics. Rapidly deployable radar system The committee is aware of U.S. Special Operations Command’s efforts to accelerate development of an ultra-low power, rapidly deployable radar system. This modular technology can enhance radar situational awareness for special operations forces elements in austere environments. The committee notes the value of this technology and its relevance in current conflicts, particularly due to the persistent threat of adversary controlled, small unmanned aerial systems. The committee looks forward to the results of addi-tional testing and encourages the integration of this ultra-low VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

74 power, rapidly deployable radar with other counter-unmanned aer-ial system efforts across the Department of Defense. Report on DoD target and threat systems The Committee recognizes that military capabilities of adversary nations continue to improve over time thus challenging the ability of the United States military to project power and protect its na-tional interests throughout the world. In order to ensure thorough and realistic testing and evaluation of defense weapons systems and effective operational unit training, it is imperative that DoD continues to develop and maintain a sufficient inventory of realistic targets and threat systems that accurately represent the capability of adversary nations. In support of that imperative, the Committee believes that the status and adequacy of target and threat systems programs need to be assessed. The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of the Depart-ment’s targets and threat systems in support of test and evaluation and training and shall identify recommended actions to address shortcomings in those systems in a final report. The review, recommendations, and final report shall address, but not be limited to, the following: (A) All airborne, seaborne, ground, and undersea targets and tar-get control systems used to support open air test and evaluation and warfighter training exercises; (B) All real and simulated threat systems used to support open air test and evaluation and warfighter training exercises; (C) The degree to which all of the above systems replicate both current and future threats; (D) The adequacy of target and threat systems inventories to meet current and future test and evaluation and training require-ments; (E) The ability of the above systems to support effective testing and evaluation of future U.S. combat and weapon systems; (F) The ability of the above systems to support effective warfighter training against future threats. Not later than one year after the date of enactment, the Sec-retary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a final report on the review and recommended actions to address all short-comings in the abilities of DoD targets and threat systems to effec-tively support open air test and evaluation events and training ex-ercises. Research to enhance the understanding of adversarial influence op-erations Manipulation of the global information environment by adver-saries using both human and machine means poses a challenge to the viability of democratic institutions and social stability. The committee is aware of research conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop technologies for high-fidelity simulation of online social behavior, while testing and measuring simulation accuracy and other research projects to bet-ter understand influence. For example, the Social-Cognitive Infor-mation Security research program uses modeling and simulation to examine how behavior is manipulated in a way that compromises cyber or social infrastructures. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

75 The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense recently designated the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to be the Joint Proponent for Military Information Support Oper-ations (MISO), and to establish a global messaging/counter-mes-saging capability. The committee believes research conducted to en-hance the understanding of the impact of adversarial manipulation of the global information environment may complement and inform information operation activities of the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee encourages the Director of DARPA and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to collaborate and provide for transition of appropriate research projects that en-hance and complement MISO. Use of authority for transactions other than contracts and grants by the Department of Defense The committee recognizes the need for agility and innovation in the procurement process. The committee believes that, when used appropriately, other transaction authority (OTA) of section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, can provide the necessary flexibility to give the Department of Defense a competitive edge in the com-mercial marketplace. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) modified and made permanent the Depart-ment’s ability to carry out certain prototype projects using OTA. Further recognizing the benefits of OTA, section 867 of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) required the Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for using other transactions (OTs) ‘‘in circumstances determined appropriate by the Secretary.’’ The committee supports the Department’s continued use of OTA to rapidly explore cutting-edge technologies and reduce barriers to attract non-traditional defense contractors. The committee also ac-knowledges the Department’s guidance that OTs should be used appropriately by individuals possessing the requisite level of busi-ness acumen and judgment to operate in a ‘‘relatively unstructured environment.’’ However, the committee is increasingly concerned by a perceived lack of transparency surrounding the use of OTA within the De-partment. The committee is particularly concerned by the limited details provided on the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental’s use of OTA to award a large-scale follow-on production contract for cloud services. While the Department significantly reduced the original award from $950.0 million to $65.0 million, and greatly limited the scope of the production agreement, the committee re-mains concerned about the Department’s failure to provide a com-prehensive explanation for how such a large-scale award was made unbeknownst to senior Department officials, and why the award was later reduced. Therefore, the committee urges the Department to exercise great-er prudence and transparency when employing OTA to prevent misuse and abuse. The committee also urges the Department to re-iterate through established guidelines that OTA is not a means for circumventing appropriate use of the Federal Acquisition Regula-tion, and that full and open competition should be used to the max-

76 imum extent practicable to maintain a sense of integrity, fairness, and credibility in the Federal procurement process. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONSSection 201—Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize appropriations for research, devel-opment, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—PROGRAMREQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, ANDLIMITATIONSSection 211—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects This section would make modifications to section 2371b of title 10, United States Code, regarding use of transactions other than contracts and grants for follow-on production. Section 212—Extension of Directed Energy Prototype Authority This section would extend the directed energy prototype author-ity provided for in section 219(c)(4) of the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) through fis-cal year 2019. Section 213—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for the Weather Common Component Program This section would restrict funding for further development of meteorological situational awareness sensor programs for un-manned aircraft systems, and require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees that describes requirements, existing technologies, current program efforts, testing and evaluation, and a fielding plan for capabilities associated with providing meteorological situational awareness to unmanned aircraft aircrews. The committee notes that the Air Force office for Unmanned Air-craft Systems (UAS) Innovations and Integration under the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (HAF/A2) began an initiative in 2010 to develop an UAS sensor that could provide real-time meteorological situational awareness for UAS aircrews to increase mission effectiveness and mitigate reliance upon weather forecasting capabilities in geo-graphic regions with limited or no weather services provided for flight operations. The effort culminated in 2015 and cost the Air Force $10.6 million. On October 30, 2015, the then-12th Air Force Commander, and now current Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Operations (HAF/A3), validated key global weather re-quirements for UAS operations, to include: increasing UAS situa-tional awareness of current and predicted state of environmental phenomena to maximize mission effectiveness, efficiency, safety, re-source protection, and risk management; relaying all onboard-UAS weather data and information, such as air temperature, humidity, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

77 wind speed and direction, turbulence, ice accretion, and weather radar in real-time; and increasing real-time, on-board weather col-lection capability to provide pilot situational awareness and sup-port Air Force forecast processes. However, the HAF/A2 sensor re-mains non-deployed, despite the Air National Guard Air Force Re-serve Command Test Center finding the sensor and its associated software to be potentially operationally effective and suitable in a formal report published in January 2018. More concerning to the committee is that a separate development effort is being under-taken by HAF/A3 weather officials that appears to duplicate the technology. Thus, this section would restrict further funding for ad-ditional systems until the Air Force provides a report that will allow the committee to evaluate the need for additional capability. Section 214—Limitation Pending Certification on the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Recapitalization Program This section would restrict obligation of funding for the Advanced Battle-Management System (ABMS) of Systems initiative of the Department of the Air Force, as well as a portion of the proposed divestment of legacy E–8C aircraft contained in the fiscal year 2019 budget request. The restriction would remain in effect until the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees that the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar Sys-tem (JSTARS) Recapitalization (Recap) program, as submitted and described in the fiscal year 2018 budget request, is proceeding unhindered with originally planned activities associated with engi-neering, manufacturing, and development; low-rate initial produc-tion; production; and initial contractor support. This section also would require the Comptroller General of the United States to pro-vide a report to the congressional defense committees that assesses the acquisition strategy associated with ABMS, and would require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congres-sional defense committees that includes a strategy for accelerating the JSTARS Recap program, while also managing appropriately the legacy fleet of E–8C aircraft. This section would also authorize use of JSTARS Recap program funding to maintain the program of-fice’s functionality. Section 215—Limitation on Availability of Funds for F–35 Continuous Capability Development and Delivery This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of 25 per-cent of the funds for the F–35 continuous capability development and delivery program until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense provides the congressional defense committees a detailed cost esti-mate and baseline schedule for the program. This section does not apply to any funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the development of F–35 dual capable aircraft capability. Section 216—Limitation on Availability of Funds Pending Report on Agile Software Development and Software Operations This section would temporarily restrict funding for software de-velopment efforts that use agile development and operations meth-odology until the Secretary of the Air Force provides a report to the congressional defense committees that describes the cost-estimation VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

78 tools, the types of contracts, and the mitigation efforts to avoid du-plicative development related to the strategy for modernizing and upgrading existing software at worldwide Air Force Air Operations Centers. Section 217—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain High Energy Laser Advanced Technology This section would limit the availability of 50 percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2019, until the Secretary of Defense pro-vides the High Energy Laser logical roadmap and assessment to the congressional defense committees. Section 218—Plan for Elimination or Transfer of the Strategic Capabilities Office of the Department of Defense This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019, for the elimination or transfer of the functions of the Strategic Capa-bilities Office to another organization or element of the Department of Defense. Section 219—National Security Science and Technology Strategy This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a National Security Science and Technology Strategy to prioritize De-partment of Defense science and technology efforts and invest-ments. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit the most recent version of the strategy to the congressional defense committees not later than February 4, 2019, and annually there-after through December 31, 2021. Section 220—Modification of CVN–73 to Support Fielding of MQ– 25 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle This section would require the Navy to fund the modification of CVN–73 during its refueling and overhaul period in support of fu-ture MQ–25 unmanned carrier aircraft operations. SUBTITLEC—REPORTS ANDOTHERMATTERSSection 221—Report on Survivability of Air Defense Artillery This section would require the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2019, on efforts to im-prove Army Air Defense Artillery (ADA) survivability and require the Army to assess measures that could better enhance ADA de-fenses, both active and passive. The committee is concerned that U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery units may lack required active and passive non-kinetic capabilities and training to maximize their level of survivability against sophis-ticated threats. The committee recognizes that ADA is a critical and increasingly important component of Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense. The committee also supports continued moderniza-tion and expansion of ADA capability. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

79 Section 222—Report on T–45 Aircraft Physiological Episode Mitigation Actions This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019, on modifications made to T–45 aircraft and associated ground equipment to mitigate the risk of physiological episodes among T– 45 aircraft crewmembers, and would require the Secretary include certain elements in such report. Section 223—Report on Efforts of the Air Force to Mitigate Physiological Episodes Affecting Aircraft Crewmembers This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to sub-mit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019, on all efforts of the Air Force to reduce the occurrence of, and mitigate the risk posed by, physiological episodes affecting crew-members of covered aircraft and would require the inclusion of cer-tain elements in such report. In this section, the term ‘‘covered air-craft’’ would mean F–35A aircraft of the Air Force, T–6A aircraft of the Air Force, and any other aircraft of the Air Force as deter-mined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Section 224—Briefing on Use of Quantum Sciences for Military Applications and Other Purposes This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing and plan for using quantum sciences for military applications and other purposes. Section 225—Report on Defense Innovation Unit Experimental This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by May 1, 2019, on the integration of Defense Innovation Unit Experimental into the broader Department of De-fense research and engineering community, the unit’s measures of effectiveness, the number and type of transitions, and the impacts of the unit’s initiatives and investments on the Department. TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST LOGISTICS ANDSUSTAINMENTISSUESBriefing on Rapidly Deployable Structures The committee is aware that the military services, including but not limited to the Air Force Civil Engineer Center at Tyndall Air Force Base, are testing and evaluating options that improve the deployability, safety, and energy efficiency of structures used by the Armed Forces in a variety of operational environments. Of par-ticular interest is the use of such structures in remote areas, where access to reliable energy sources can be difficult and environmental conditions can be severe. As such efforts continue, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to allocate appropriate re-sources for the research, development, test, evaluation, and pro-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

80 curement of structures that leverage energy efficient and insulation technologies. Toward that end, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee, by September 28, 2018, on the Department of Defense’s efforts to leverage energy ef-ficient technologies in deployed structures, particularly those capa-bilities that support operations in remote environments. This brief-ing shall include, a detailed assessment of recent tests and evalua-tions of such structures conducted by the military services, includ-ing but not limited to findings and analysis regarding thermal effi-ciency, energy generation and use, modularity, and other required capabilities; a description of key requirements, such as billeting, medical, command and control, and humanitarian and disaster re-lief, that could be addressed by these structures across the military services; and a plan to develop and promulgate guidance through-out the Department of Defense regarding energy efficient struc-tures in operational environments. Corrosion Prevention for Improved Air Force Readiness The committee recognizes the importance of efforts to minimize corrosion, decrease aerodynamic drag, and reduce environmental and occupational risks in aircraft operations. These efforts include the application of alternative coatings applied to aircraft, such as powder-applied coatings, that increase durability while minimizing hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic compounds. In addi-tion, the committee recognizes the importance of innovative tech-nologies that can rapidly and efficiently remove coatings, such as advanced laser technologies, that enable the safe and efficient re-pair and sustainment of aircraft skin made of metal or composite materials. In addition to surface coatings, adhesives and sealants are critical to providing corrosion protection and structural strength. Lighter weight sealants can reduce aircraft weight, ex-tending operational range and reducing fuel consumption. Further-more, advances are being made in screening technologies to reduce the amount of time required to validate a material’s performance and incorporate it into aircraft maintenance strategy. The com-mittee supports additional efforts that incorporate a range of tar-geted solutions designed to minimize corrosion and meet Air Force needs for manned and unmanned aircraft. The committee encour-ages the Secretary of the Air Force to continue to support those ef-forts that improve operational capability and reduce the cost and amount of time required to sustain these weapon systems. Innovative Engine Sustainment Wash-Down Management Program The committee notes that aircraft flown by the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps often fly in corrosive or dusty environments. As a result, contaminants adhere to the tur-bine blades behind the combustion chamber and could adversely af-fect engine performance or operation. The committee believes the Department of the Navy should assess what additional operational or maintenance actions could be taken to further to improve fuel efficiency and aircraft availability rates in these corrosive and dusty environments. The committee understands the Navy and Ma-

81 rine Corps must be able to operate independently worldwide and that targeted investments in energy efficiency enhance combat ca-pability and reduce need for logistics support. The committee un-derstands that maintenance practices and technologies exist for aircraft engine sustainment, to include using ‘‘washdown’’ proc-esses, that could potentially improve fuel efficiency, extend the servicelife of engine components and in turn, improve overall avia-tion readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 28, 2018 on the advisability and feasibility of the estab-lishment of a pilot program led by the Commander, U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) to test new technologies and best practices in operational energy and resiliency for engine sustainment which reduces maintenance costs, improves aircraft availability rates, and lowers aircraft fuel consumption rates. Leveraging Technology To Improve Equipment Readiness The committee notes that readiness is defined by the Department of Defense as ‘‘the ability of military forces to fight and meet the demands of assigned missions’’ and is supported by personnel, training, and equipment readiness. Increasing and sustaining equipment readiness relies on balancing modernization initiatives with ensuring the proper maintenance, utilization, and sustainment of existing weapon systems. The committee is aware of innovative maintenance technologies and practices that may help reduce costs and the time that equipment and weapon sys-tems are down for maintenance, while helping to maximize lifespan and operational availability rates. A significant amount of data can be captured through embedding diagnostic sensors and collecting operator observations, enabling predictive analytic software to proactively identify pending maintenance issues. The committee encourages the service secretaries to seek additional opportunities to leverage innovative technologies and maintenance practices, ei-ther as demonstration projects or by incorporating them into a fleet maintenance plan, to increase maintenance responsiveness and the operational availability of weapon systems. Life Cycle Costs of Major Defense Acquisition Programs The committee notes that section 2340 note of title 10, United States Code, requires the Department of Defense to ensure com-petition throughout the life cycle of major defense acquisition pro-grams and the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisi-tion program includes measures to ensure competition or the option of competition and adequate documentation of the rationale for se-lection. Furthermore, the committee notes that section 2340 note of title 10 requires whenever a decision regarding source of repair results in a plan to award a contract for performance of maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon system or subsystem of a major weapon system, the Department shall take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with statutory requirements, contracts for such maintenance and sustainment are VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

82 awarded on a competitive basis and give full considerations to all sources. The committee is concerned about the life cycle costs of major de-fense acquisition programs and how the Department’s implementa-tion of section 2340 note of title 10 is impacting these associated program costs. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acqui-sition and Sustainment to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services, not later than December 1, 2018, on the Department’s implementation of section 2340 note of title 10. Spe-cifically, the briefing will include the strategy for each major de-fense acquisition program, the measures taken to ensure competi-tion at both the contract and subcontract level, and the impact of these measures on the life cycle costs for each major defense acqui-sition program. Additionally, the briefing will include for each major defense acquisition program the consideration of competition throughout the maintenance and sustainment phases. Management of Navy Legacy F/A–18 Aircraft The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy’s intent to divest legacy F/A–18 aircraft when the majority of the F/A–18 aircraft inventory remains non-flyable due to maintenance backlogs and availability of spare parts. Further, these aircraft experience high physiological event rates. Even so, the committee was encour-aged by the Navy’s decision to award an alternative-source contract for F/A–18 A/B/C/D depot-level maintenance to reduce the backlog of legacy F/A–18 depot-level maintenance. This contract, awarded in February 2016, can help improve overall aviation readiness rates. The committee is concerned, however, that the Navy’s plan for managing the life cycle of the fleet is not clear. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2018, on the Navy’s plans for the F/A–18 legacy fleet. The briefing should address the divestiture plan for the F/A– 18 aircraft and the rationale for divestiture. For the aircraft re-maining, the briefing should address the readiness recovery plans, including plans to fully utilize the alternative-source depot-level maintenance contract. Navy Next-Generation Small Arms Weapons Training and Readiness Requirements The committee is concerned that after 5 years, the Navy has not developed a comprehensive plan to address significant small arms training shortfalls identified following the 2013 Washington Navy Yard shooting. The committee reiterated these concerns in the com-mittee report (H. Rept. 114–537) accompanying the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The report directed the Navy to evaluate innovative, non-program-of-record small arms and crew-served training systems to improve Navy security force and fleetwide small arms tactical and crew-served training. The committee is aware of next-generation synthetic small arms train-ing systems that can provide consistent, metrics-based proof of live- fire transfer across warfighter skill levels for individual and crew- served training. Such systems, which reduce ammunition expendi-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

83 ture and training time, have been demonstrated by the Navy Expe-ditionary Combat Command. The committee believes that these systems can improve reaction time and decision making under stress, skills critical to determining hostile intent and making esca-lation of force decisions. Given the benefits of these next-generation systems, the committee is concerned that the Navy has continued to rely on legacy simulation systems built for other services, with-out consideration of unique Navy small arms training and readi-ness requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than November 30, 2018, regarding a comprehensive plan to meet small arms training requirements, how next-generation synthetic small arms training systems will be integrated into the comprehensive plan, and the Navy’s acquisition strategy to support small arms training requirements. Navy Ship Maintenance and Repair The committee is aware that the Navy changed its contracting strategy for ship maintenance and repair in 2013, moving away from the system used since 2004. Despite this change, the Navy continues to experience delays in completing ship availabilities, leading to a reduction in the time a ship’s crew has to prepare for deployment. The committee appreciates the need to control costs and to resolve all emergent maintenance issues when a ship is in a maintenance availability. However, the committee is not per-suaded that the Navy’s current Multiple Award Contract, Multiple Order (MAC–MO) mechanism is always the best contracting ap-proach. The committee has learned of delays in renegotiating con-tracts while vessels sit idle in the yard, as well as third party plan-ning contractors not obtaining long lead time materials when need-ed. The committee is aware that the Comptroller General of the United States looked at similar issues, described in Government Accountability Office report GAO–17–54, issued in 2016. To better understand what adjustments may be needed to make improvements to the Navy’s ship maintenance and repair process, the committee directs the Comptroller General to: (1) compare the Navy’s execution of the MAC–MO strategy against the previous Multi-Ship, Multi-Option strategy, with par-ticular emphasis on cost, lost operational days, and on-time comple-tion; (2) assess the effectiveness of third party planners in the MAC– MO strategy, including their performance in developing stable well- defined requirements during advance planning; (3) assess the adequacy of the Navy’s structure for contract over-sight; (4) assess the stability and viability of the ship repair industrial base, including private industry’s capacity to recruit and retain critically skilled workers and maintain safe and efficient facilities; and (5) assess advantages, disadvantages, or key differences between the MAC–MO and Multi-Ship, Multi-Option strategy depending on the location where the work will be performed. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a re-port to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

84 House of Representative by March 1, 2019, on these matters and recommendations to improve the Navy’s contracting process. Supply of Aviation Parts and Spares The committee is concerned by the rate of non-mission capable aircraft due to issues with supply of parts and spares. The com-mittee is aware of numerous examples of aircraft that have been non-mission capable for several months waiting for the arrival of a part. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of De-fense for Acquisition and Sustainment to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2018, on the Department’s efforts to address issues associated with the availability and supply of aviation parts and spares. At min-imum, the briefing should provide an update on the rate of non- mission capable aircraft due to supply, specific actions the Depart-ment is taking to decrease this rate, and commercial and industry best-practices for maintenance and supply that may be adopted as part of an overall strategy to improve aircraft mission capability rates. READINESSISSUESAdditive Manufacturing in Depot Facilities The committee is encouraged by the progress that depots and ar-senals in each military department are making in developing addi-tive manufacturing capabilities. The committee understands that this capability allows depots to quickly manufacture parts that are no longer available from commercial suppliers, allowing rapid re-pair of essential operational equipment. However, there remains substantial room across each of the services to add more additive manufacturing capacity. Additionally, the committee has observed little commonality across the Department of Defense in addressing intellectual property issues associated with this process. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 3, 2018, on a strategy to further integrate additive man-ufacturing capabilities into industrial facilities across the Depart-ment to speed parts production, return equipment to the force, and improve material readiness. The briefing should also address progress in resolving legal and patent questions around use of ad-ditive manufacturing. Adversary Air Training The committee notes that the budget request contained increased funds for the Air Force to provide more adversary air contracted support for Red Flag exercises, Warfighter Integration Center, and combat air force fighter formal training unit locations. The com-mittee also notes that the budget request contained increased funds for the Navy to provide adversary air support at specialized schools including the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. The committee supports these efforts to contract for adversary air train-ing to aid aviation readiness recovery. Contract support will make more combat-coded pilots available for operational duties rather than adversary air training missions and reduce the number of VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

85 training hours being placed on airframes. In acquiring contracted services for adversary air, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to maximize com-petition and ensure the contracts provide flexibility to adjust to emerging training requirements. Finally, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of the Navy to seek opportunities to coordinate adversary air requirements to reduce overall costs and maximize the support to aviation readiness recov-ery of both departments. Army Soldier and Squad Virtual Trainer The committee commends the Army’s decision to replace its leg-acy small arms simulation trainer and call for fire trainer with an advanced Soldier and Squad Virtual Trainer (S/SVT) program to achieve next-generation synthetic small arms, call for fire, use of force, and close quarters combat training and readiness objectives. The committee believes continued improvement of these systems is essential to future success of small units on the battlefield. The committee believes the Army should consider key capabilities such as the use of biometrics, advanced human performance techniques, cognitive drills, and robust data collection to verify soldier improve-ment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 3, 2018, that details the status of the Army’s plan for S/SVT and how key capability and system require-ments currently projected by the Army are being accounted for, and will be implemented, in the final S/SVT program in order to sus-tain readiness. Assessment of Navy Standard Workweek The committee notes that the Navy’s Comprehensive Review identified fatigue and ineffective crew rest management in the four mishaps that occurred in the Western Pacific in 2017. As noted in the review, ‘‘if crewmembers are overly fatigued, mission accom-plishment, performance, and safety are in jeopardy.’’ The Com-prehensive Review went on to recommend the Navy establish a comprehensive fatigue management policy, and a circadian ship and watch rotation for surface ships. The committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2018, that identifies how Chief of Naval Oper-ations Instructions, and other relevant policy documents, have been updated to implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Review and address crew fatigue, watch rotations, and overall workload for crewmembers of surface ships. Availability and Sufficiency of Training Ranges to Conduct Training against Near-Peer Adversaries To build and sustain full-spectrum combat readiness, the mili-tary services must train on ranges that replicate the capabilities of near-peer adversaries. Such training requires ranges with sizable land, sea, and air space to accommodate the tactics of modern sys-tems and weapons. In addition, modern war demands extensive training on weapons employment and target identification, as po-

86 tential adversaries possess complex air defenses and highly sophis-ticated electronic countermeasures. However, training ranges lack sufficient capability and capacity to support full-spectrum training requirements, including the replication of near-peer adversaries’ ca-pabilities. Further, because of the strategic significance of forward- deployed and rotational forces, building overseas training range ca-pabilities is becoming more important to sustaining full-spectrum readiness. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense’s training range infrastructure is not keeping up with the demand to support full-spectrum training requirements. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to as-sess the following: (1) the extent to which the Department of Defense has identified the current capacity of training range infrastructure to meet the military services’ demand for range access; (2) the extent to which the Department of Defense has evaluated the training range infrastructure to determine whether it is suffi-cient to conduct training against near-peer adversary capabilities; and (3) the extent to which the Department of Defense has developed a comprehensive strategy and investment plan to improve the availability and sufficiency of training ranges to meet the Depart-ment’s training needs. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2019, on the findings of this review and to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. Briefing on Security Forces Assistance Brigade Location Plan The committee recognizes that a future Security Forces Assist-ance Brigade (SFAB) construct should highly encourage an expan-sion of alliances and partnerships as called for in the 2018 Na-tional Defense Strategy. Therefore, the committee directs the Sec-retary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than January 1, 2019, on the strategic alignment decision matrix and installations plan for the fielding of the Security Forces Assistance Brigades. The plan shall include an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of stationing SFABs appropriately to address the requirements of the geographic com-batant commands. CONUS Training Facilities In support of the Department of State’s Anti-Terrorism-Assist-ance program, many commercial companies created state of the art CONUS training facilities that provided critical skills to deployable personnel. However, these CONUS training facilities are now being underutilized due to an increased tendency to conduct training OCONUS. These training facilities have successfully increased readiness and contributed to overall mission success through part-nerships with programs such as U.S. Military Afghanistan-Paki-stan Hands (APH) as well as U.S. Military Observer Group (USMOG). The committee is aware of the excess capacity available VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

87 at these commercial training facilities and encourages the Depart-ment of Defense and Department of State to use them to further enhance anti-terrorism training. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a report by March 1, 2019 detailing the require-ment for all services to conduct enhanced and critical skills train-ing. In addition, this report should detail the feasibility of using CONUS facilities to conduct this antiterrorism training and iden-tify any training backlogs and any facility infrastructure shortfalls that exist in order to accomplish this type of training. Entry Control Facility Technology The committee remains concerned about the physical security of U.S. military facilities, both in the continental United States as well as abroad. Entry control points at such facilities are particu-larly vulnerable and require special attention and protection. The committee recognizes the need to continually assess new technology and develop enhanced entry control options in order to protect De-partment of Defense facilities against evolving adversarial tech-nologies, such as drones and autonomous vehicles. The committee encourages the service secretaries to seek additional opportunities to leverage innovative technologies and research and development in order to enhance overall security, reduce military construction requirements, reduce annual operation and maintenance costs, in-crease joint interoperability, and protect valuable resources. Foreign Language Readiness The committee believes that a globally engaged military force re-quires an adequate number of personnel trained and proficient in foreign languages. The committee notes the significant number of personnel who attend the Defense Language Institute—Foreign Language Center, the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, and other foreign language training programs each year, as well as the global allocation of linguists among the geo-graphic combatant command areas of responsibility. The committee believes these institutions can be augmented by innovative online programs conducted as a traditional classroom, with a live instruc-tor engaging a small student group. Such programs reduce the need for travel and have proven more effective than self-paced in-struction. The committee also notes efforts by the Department of Defense to recruit and utilize native speakers of critical languages to support combatant command requirements. Despite the critical requirements for foreign language expertise in certain career fields, the committee is concerned that the overall foreign language readi-ness of the total force is not adequately documented and assessed. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2019, that assesses the foreign language readiness of the total force. The brief-ing shall address the required number of personnel trained and proficient in foreign languages, the current number of personnel trained and proficient in foreign languages, and the distribution of linguist personnel to the appropriate combatant commands; iden-tify any gaps in foreign language readiness to include specific VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

88 shortfalls in critical languages and mitigations to address those gaps; and assess the current foreign language training, education, and proficiency testing programs. Forward Deployed Naval Force Ship Maintenance and Repair Capacity The committee notes that since 2006, the Navy has doubled the number of surface ships assigned to overseas homeports, with more than 14 percent of the Navy’s ships based at ports in the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, and Japan. The committee also notes that combatant commander demand for naval presence drives the Navy to base ships at overseas ports. However, the extent to which the Navy has the capacity for ship maintenance and repairs overseas is not clear. To assess that capacity, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the following: (1) ship maintenance and repair capacity overseas in either U.S. ports or foreign repair yards; (2) to what extent has the Navy identified and taken action to address its overseas maintenance requirements; (3) to what extent has the Navy identified the underlying causes of overseas maintenance overruns; (4) mitigation options to address any maintenance shortfalls; and (5) any other issues the Comptroller General determines appro-priate with respect to forward deployed naval force ship mainte-nance and repair capacity. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than November 12, 2018, on the Comptroller General’s pre-liminary findings and to submit a final report to the congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. Immersive Virtual Shipboard Environment Training The committee notes that the Navy has used game-based learn-ing concepts and immersive virtual shipboard environment (IVSE) training for select watch stations aboard Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The committee understands that IVSE courses offer scalable solutions that have led to faster qualification and certification times, a higher degree of training proficiency, and increased knowl-edge retention. The committee notes that the Navy’s Strategic Readiness Review recognized that the Navy must ‘‘foster a culture of learning and create the structures and processes that fully em-brace this commitment’’ in order to restore readiness, yet the Navy has made little progress in adopting proven methods to cultivate the learning culture. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than September 28, 2018, on the Navy’s plans to improve training. The briefing should: (1) identify training benefits and lessons learned from the Navy’s experience with game-based learning concepts and IVSE training for LCS watch stations; (2) outline a plan, including associated timelines, for applying such training to Navy and Marine Corps training requirements VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

89 across all naval surface ship platforms in alignment with the Chief of Naval Operations’ tenet of achieving high-velocity learning using 21st century technology; (3) identify discrete mission areas where insufficient assets are available to provide traditional training to achieve full-spectrum readiness and where IVSE would improve watch-station training, including training for new platform development programs, coastal riverine operations, and amphibious operations; and (4) provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by March 1, 2019 on the ad-visability and feasibility of procuring, altering, or otherwise modi-fying the Navy’s bridge simulators, including the Navigation, Sea-manship, and Shiphandling Trainer, to enable high-fidelity phys-ical representation of the different bridge layouts, characteristics, and operating environments of ships across the fleet. Information Operations The committee understands the growing importance of space and cyber operations in military operations and in another provision elsewhere in this Act directed the Secretary of Defense to report readiness to conduct operations in the space and cyber domains. The committee believes that information operations are similarly becoming a major factor in military planning and that operational skill in conducting information operations will be critical to future military success. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the value of measuring and regularly reporting the readiness of the joint force to conduct information operations and report his recommendations to the Committees on Armed Serv-ices of the Senate and the House of Representatives by January 31, 2019. Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training Solution Enhancements The committee recognizes the important role that live training systems play as part of a comprehensive effort to improve readi-ness. The committee is aware the Army and Marine Corps are planning for the use of live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) simula-tion training systems that emphasize joint interoperability. How-ever, the committee is concerned that despite recent progress ad-vancing such LVC capabilities there remain challenges in both fielding and integrating live training devices with both individual and collective training objectives. Additional challenges occur when planned upgrades to new and existing vehicle platforms occur with-out the corresponding modifications to the training systems. The committee believes that the acquisition and fielding of training sys-tems must be synchronized with the procurement, fielding, and modernization of weapon systems to ensure the services’ overall training objectives are supported in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. In addition, the committee encourages the military depart-ments to ensure that new LVC training systems are interoperable with both the joint force infrastructure and the advanced training systems of key allied nations and coalition partners. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 3, 2018, on VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

90 the plans of the Army and Marine Corps to utilize live training sys-tems as part of readiness recovery and long-term training efforts. The briefing should address the plans and timelines for fielding live training systems and synchronizing such efforts with the field-ing or modernization of weapon systems and efforts to ensure such systems are interoperable with our military partners and allies. Military Working Dog Capacity and Facilities The committee is aware that military working dogs are a critical enabler to both facility and operational force security and that the operational need continues to grow. The committee is concerned about the average age of the military working dog population and the capacity to train and access new dogs and handlers to meet fu-ture requirements. Additionally, the committee notes that invest-ments in military working dog facilities have not kept pace with the increased demand for military working dogs. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, as the executive agent for the military working dog program, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2018, that addresses: (1) the total current and future requirement for military working dogs, handlers, and instructors by mission capability; (2) the total number of military working dogs and handlers cur-rently available for operational tasking by mission capability; (3) an assessment of the condition and capacity of military work-ing dog facilities to support current and future requirements, to in-clude the ability to provide adequate medical care as well as meet mission training requirements; and (4) an assessment of capability gaps and plans to mitigate these gaps, including programmed investments. Modeling and Simulation for Training, Exercises, and Joint Planning The committee recognizes that the defense modeling and simula-tion technological and industrial base, including in academia, in-dustry, and government, is an important national security asset. The committee appreciates that the Department of Defense con-tinues to use modeling and simulation technologies across the spec-trum of defense activities, including for training, exercises, and joint planning activities. The committee encourages the military services and the combatant commanders to maximize the use of modeling and simulation, including in service, joint, and combined exercises; in joint planning for theater operations and contingencies that cannot be accurately planned for by other means; and in the development of options for senior leadership at the strategic level. The committee believes it is important for Congress to have a clearer understanding of the benefits and impacts of the Depart-ment’s use of modeling and simulation. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than November 30, 2018 on the effects of integrating modeling and simulation into the re-view and development of operational plans, joint training and exer-cises, and high-priority security cooperation initiatives.

91 Modernization and Integration of Major Range and Test Facilities Bases The committee notes a lack of consistent policy and standardized processes within the Department of Defense to guide the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the Director of Test Re-source Management Center (TRMC) in scheduling systems utilized by shared military test and training ranges. The committee is con-cerned that lack of standardization fails to optimize these vital re-sources nor accommodate joint force utilization. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than January 23, 2019, on its plan to standardize major range and test facilities bases (MRTFB) scheduling. At a minimum, the briefing should: (1) identify processes to standardize and integrate current sched-uling systems between the joint users of MRTFB ranges and facili-ties; (2) identify process that efficiently integrates next generation air-craft avionics, propulsion and weapons systems test and training; (3) optimizes use and capacity of training range land and air-space between competing needs; and, (4) provide recommendations on metrics and methods which will ensure each service has an equal opportunity to test and train on MRTFB. Surface Fleet Live Fire Training The committee recognizes the Navy’s desire to increase fleet readiness training and exercise ship systems before deployment by including live-firing of missiles in pre-deployment training exer-cises. The committee also notes the Navy’s Standard Missile-3 Block IA inventory is approaching the end of service life. Further-more, the committee is aware that in lieu of demilitarization, the Navy intends to assess repurposing these missiles to conduct live- fire readiness training using shipboard ballistic missile defense sys-tems. The committee encourages this initiative and directs the Sec-retary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than November 5, 2018, on the Navy’s progress in making SM–3 Block IA missiles approaching the end of their service life available for live-fire readiness training for ships and crews. Universal Camouflage Inventory and Overdye Technology The committee notes the Army’s transition from Universal Cam-ouflage Pattern (UCP) to Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) for soldier uniforms and personal equipment, even though the Army possesses a substantial inventory of now obsolete UCP prod-ucts. The committee is also aware of Program Executive Office Sol-dier’s efforts to evaluate overdye technologies and processes. This evaluation could validate processes that could alter UCP printed products into a color palette that blends with the new camouflage prints, allowing the Army to conserve resources by overdying UCP materials for use with OCP patterned equipment. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than August 31, 2018, that includes any current efforts to repurpose and VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

92 field UCP personal equipment, any evaluations of overdye tech-nologies and processes, and a business case analysis of fielding these overdye technologies and processes. OTHERMATTERSAir Refueling Capability and Capacity The committee notes that air refueling capability is a critical component of logistical capacity and that the Air National Guard fulfills the majority of air refueling requirements. The committee notes that section 144 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) required the Secretary of Defense to carry out a mobility capability and requirements study that includes an assessment of the air refueling tanker aircraft military requirement. Upon completion of the study, the committee is interested in how the Air Force will support the requirements for force structure and strategic laydown of aircraft necessary to imple-ment the study. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2019, on how the Air Force will support the requirements for aerial refueling. At a minimum, the briefing shall include: (1) the current and future laydown plans for air refueling loca-tions; (2) an overview of air refueling operations per air refueling wing locations to include the number of sortie requests, the number of sorties fulfilled, and the locations or missions the sorties supported; (3) fully mission capable and aircraft availability rates for all air refueling wings over the past 5 years; (4) an assessment of how the Air National Guard force structure, across all States and territories, can be leveraged to support cur-rent and emerging air refueling requirements; (5) a description of the long-term plan to maintain adequate re-fueling capability to meet current and emerging requirements; (6) a review of manpower levels across the air refueling force, an identification of current and projected skill set gaps, and rec-ommendations on how to address these gaps; and (7) an overview of how the Air Force will determine the disposi-tion of KC–135 aircraft as they are replaced by arrival of KC–46 aircraft. Disposition of Excess Military Ground Vehicles The committee notes that the Defense Logistics Agency’s Disposi-tion Services is responsible for disposing of excess property received from the military services. Excess military property is screened for reutilization within the Department of Defense; transfer to other Federal agencies; donation to State and local governments, or other qualified organizations; or sale to the general public. As part of the screening process, Disposition Services must assess demilitariza-tion (DEMIL) requirements for the excess property to prevent un-authorized use or the compromise of national security. For ground vehicles, such DEMIL requirements can range from the removal of certain parts and components to the full mutilation and scrapping VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

93 of the vehicle. The committee is aware of concerns that types of ground vehicles heretofore available for donation are now consigned to scrap. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in coordination with the Com-mander of the Defense Logistics Agency, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2019, regarding the disposition of military ground vehicles. The report should include classes and types of Department of De-fense military ground vehicles eligible to be considered in the dona-tion and sale program and explanation of the DEMIL codes used in the determination process. Additionally, the report should out-line the DEMIL code determination process for ground vehicles, whether applicable polices were followed when ground vehicles pre-viously made available to State and local governments or civilian military museums have instead been scrapped, and steps taken to reevaluate current policies and practices. Finally, the report should include measures taken by the Disposal Services program to im-prove transparency so that State and local governments or civilian military museums have appropriate access to ground vehicles. Fluorine-Free Fire Fighting Foam The committee is aware that the military departments are in the process of replacing legacy aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) with an AFFF that does not contain perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) compounds. In addition, the committee is aware the Department of Defense has undertaken research and development efforts related to fluorine-free AFFF. The committee encourages the Department to accelerate such efforts, to the extent possible. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2019, on the progress made towards development and fielding of a fluorine-free AFFF that meets military requirements. At minimum, the briefing should summarize research and development initiatives on fluo-rine-free AFFF that have been funded by the Department of De-fense to date, a summary of the current status and findings of such initiatives, and what additional research and development may be required prior to fielding a fluorine-free AFFF. Improving Water Security and Efficiency on Installations Efficient facilities are critical for the support, redeployment, and operation of military forces. While some installations have done great work to improve water efficiency, the Committee is concerned that the military may not be maximizing strategic use of water re-sources at all installations, and that this could be adding unneces-sary costs that could be more effectively used elsewhere. Further-more, water security is a vital component of installation readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a report on innovative ways to reduce water use across instal-lations in order to strengthen base readiness through improved water security, and to identify opportunities to replicate across in-stallations some of the successful water-saving tactics already being deployed at some bases, such as planting more native species VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

94 and increasing use of gray water systems. The report shall be sub-mitted to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2019. Joint Navy-Coast Guard Arctic Strategy The Navy and the Coast Guard currently produce their own Arc-tic strategies. The Committee believes the absence of a joint strat-egy stands in contradiction to the Secretary of Defense’s National Defense Strategy, calling for greater integration of a joint force and renewed attention on more traditional peer competitors, namely Russia and China. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Coast Guard to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by Sep-tember 30, 2018 that provides a framework for a joint strategy in-tegrating all components of the Navy and Coast Guard Arctic mis-sion sets and providing adequate vessel and aircraft resource allo-cation allowing for the United States to effectively advance security and commercial interests in the region. The briefing should take into consideration the Arctic’s relevance in the Navy’s configuration of a 355 vessel fleet and identify proper Navy and Coast Guard re-source allocation to that effect. Meeting Readiness Requirements Efficiently The House Armed Services Committee is concerned that the number of mandatory training and administrative requirements for Service members of the Department of Defense, and the burden that they maintain a multitude of different accounts on different systems to accomplish an array of administrative and training mandatory requirements especially for Reserve Component Service members, impedes their ability to efficiently achieve worldwide de-ployment readiness. The Committee is aware that, for example, the U.S. Navy Reserve maintains no fewer than ten different computer systems that service members must regularly use. The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation is di-rected to submit to the congressional defense committees a report by April 1, 2019, detailing the costs incurred by each military serv-ice to maintain each training and administrative personnel system, particularly computerized systems, and options to consolidate these systems to save taxpayer money, reduce the burden on military members, and promote readiness. Motorcycle Safety Training The committee is aware that each of the armed services conducts motorcycle safety training before allowing service members to oper-ate a motorcycle on base. The committee applauds this training and encourages the Department of Defense to continue. The com-mittee has learned that nine States, including several with large military installations, have imposed unique training requirements that go beyond those contained in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compliant curriculum. The committee has also learned that the Air Force and Coast Guard adjust their train-ing to meet unique State requirements, while the Departments of the Army and Navy do not, forcing soldiers, sailors, and marines VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

95 to seek and pay for the added required training individually. The committee encourages the Secretaries of the Army and Navy to re-view the adequacy of motorcycle safety training in their respective military departments to ease the burden on soldiers, sailors, and marines. Open-Air Disposal of Munitions and Munition Constituents The committee remains concerned about the Department of De-fense’s continued reliance on open burning and open detonation for the demilitarization of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable munitions by its industrial depots rather than using alternative contained technologies. While the committee recognizes the Department may have a need to retain some open burning and open detonation ca-pability for explosive safety reasons, the committee is aware of the Department’s efforts to reduce its use of open burning and open detonation. Section 1421 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) directed the Secretary of the Army to enter into an arrangement with the Board on Army Science and Technology of the National Academies of Sciences, En-gineering, and Medicine to conduct a study of the conventional mu-nitions demilitarization program of the Department of Defense. The intent of this study was to better understand the Department’s cur-rent procedures, its rationale for using open burning and open det-onation, and the status and suitability of alternative technologies in use or under development to reduce the Department’s reliance on open burning and open detonation. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than 90 days after the date on which the National Academy of Science releases its report, on the actions the Army intends to take in response to the National Academy of Science committee’s recommendations. Physical Security at U.S. Shipyards The committee believes it is important to ensure the safety and security of personnel and Navy vessels undergoing maintenance in public and private shipyard facilities. While the security of the pub-lic shipyards is the responsibility of the Navy, the committee un-derstands that private shipyards must meet specific requirements for physical security barriers, perimeter and waterfront access con-trol, security forces, patrol craft, and other security measures while performing work on Navy vessels. The committee notes there are certain locations where private shipyards are near or adjacent to a Navy installation or to another shipyard performing work on Navy vessels. In such cases, each shipyard is required to individ-ually meet the security requirements associated with a repair con-tract. The costs associated with these security requirements are ul-timately passed back to the government through the cost of the re-pair contract. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to examine this issue and work with private shipyards to find opportunities to meet security requirements in a more col-laborative and cost-effective way at shipyards that are near or ad-jacent to a Navy installation or another shipyard performing work on Navy vessels.

96 Quality of Life at Remote Sites The committee notes that the Army and other military services operate several installations at isolated locations in the western United States. Some Army examples include Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; Hawthorne Army Depot, Nevada; and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. These remote locations are usually staffed with small populations, presenting financial solvency chal-lenges for morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) business activi-ties of the Department of the Army. As a result, there are few MWR activities, shopping venues, or dining options on or near the installation to support the daily working population of military per-sonnel, Federal civilian personnel, contract employees, and family members. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to review the quality of life support options for all those who work at such installations and develop a plan for improvement. Regional Biosecurity Plan The Secretary of Defense is directed to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, at the same time as the President submits the budget for a fiscal year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a report describing the activities of the Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal year to implement the Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii, which is a strategic plan led by the De-partment of Defense in collaboration with other Federal and non- Federal entities to prevent and control the introduction of invasive species in the United States Pacific region. The Department of De-fense’s report shall also include next steps and planned activities of the Department for further implementation of the plan, includ-ing estimates of additional funding to be used or needed for such next steps and planned activities. Review of Household Good Weight Allowances The committee believes that service members should pursue in-tellectual development by reading thoughtful books related to the military profession. Indeed, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and each Service Chief maintains active professional reading lists to encourage military members to read as part of professional development. The committee further recognizes that a growing number of military families opt for home schooling as a means to provide stability to children’s education. The committee notes that the current household good movement weight allowance for mili-tary professional gear is 2,000 pounds for military members and 500 pounds for dependent spouses. Professional gear includes a range of items including books, uniforms, and technical equipment. The committee understands that Joint Travel Regulation 051304 modified the allowable weight credit computation for professional gear and definition of professional gear. The committee is con-cerned that the household good professional gear weight allowance and allowable weight credit computation is insufficient to support increasingly educated workforce and military families who homeschool; therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command in coordination with the military departments and the Defense Travel Management Office to provide VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

97 a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than August 31, 2018, on the household goods weight allowances. This briefing shall include, at a minimum: (1) A summary of the most recent assessment of weight allow-ance requirements (2) Any changes to the household weight allowance for profes-sional gear for the previous ten years (3) A review of complaints from service members on professional gear weight allowances and actions taken to address these concerns (4) Any recommended policy changes and actions. Review of Mandatory Training Required by Law The committee is encouraged by recent initiatives across the military services to review and reduce mandatory administrative training requirements. Such mandates consume time and resources of operational unit leaders and troops and should only be required when necessary to improve the readiness of the force. This issue is especially acute in the Reserve Components, with limited training days. The committee recognizes that such requirements are gen-erated from within the Department of Defense as well as through legislative mandates and statutes. The committee intends to review current military training mandates that arise from statute for pos-sible repeal and would welcome the views of the Secretary of De-fense. To that end, the committee encourages the Secretary of De-fense to provide a list of any legal mandates to conduct training to the House Committee on Armed Services, accompanied by his rec-ommendation of any that should be repealed. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONSSection 301—Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of di-vision D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—ENERGY ANDENVIRONMENTSection 311—Inclusion of Consideration of Energy and Climate Resiliency Efforts in Master Plans for Major Military Installations This section would amend section 2864 of title 10, United States Code, to require energy and climate resiliency efforts to be consid-ered in installation master plans to ensure the ability to sustain mission-critical operations. Section 312—Use of Proceeds from Sales of Electrical Energy De-rived from Geothermal Resources for Projects at Military Instal-lations Where Resources Are Located This section would amend section 2916 of title 10, United States Code, to enable certain proceeds from the sale of electrical energy generated from a geothermal energy resource to be used for instal-lation energy or water security projects at the military installation in which the geothermal energy resource is located. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

98 Section 313—Extension of Authorized Periods of Permitted Inci-dental Takings of Marine Mammals in the Course of Specified Activities by Department of Defense This section would amend section 1371 of title 16, United States Code, to extend the period the Secretary of Interior may authorize the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Department of De-fense from 5 years to 10 years if the Secretary finds that such takings will have a negligible impact on any marine mammal spe-cies. Section 314—State Management and Conservation of Species This section would prohibit listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse and the Lesser Prairie-Chicken under the Endangered Species Act for a 10-year period. This section would also provide that the pre-vious such listing of the American Burying Beetle may not be en-forced or reinstated. SUBTITLEC—LOGISTICS ANDSUSTAINMENTSection 321—Examination of Naval Vessels This section would amend section 7304 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that examinations of naval vessels performed under the authority of that section after October 1, 2019, shall be conducted on a no notice basis. This section would also provide that reports detailing the results of such inspections be unclassified and available to the public. Section 322—Overhaul and Repair of Naval Vessels in Foreign Shipyards This section would amend section 7310 of title 10, United States Code, to require naval vessels that do not have a homeport be treated as being homeported in the United States or Guam with re-gard to repair and maintenance of those vessels. Additionally, this section would define the term voyage repair. Section 323—Limitation on Length of Overseas Forward Deployment of Naval Vessels This section would add a new section to chapter 633 of title 10, United States Code, that would require the Secretary of the Navy to limit the time a naval vessel is forward deployed overseas to 10 years. This section would permit the Secretary to waive the 10-year requirement for individual naval vessels with notification to the congressional defense committees. This section would further pro-vide that all currently forward deployed naval ships which have ex-ceeded 10 years of service overseas shall have 3 years to return to a U.S. homeport. Finally, this section would require the Secretary to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on his rotation plan for forward deployed naval ships. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

99 Section 324—Temporary Modification of Workload Carryover Formula This section would require the Secretary of Defense to modify the workload carryover calculation formula for each military depart-ment depot or arsenal through September 30, 2021. These modi-fications would reflect the timing of enacted appropriations and the varying repair cycle times of the workload supported, and apply in addition to current Department of Defense carryover exemptions. Section 325—Limitation on Use of Funds for Implementation of Elements of Master Plan for Redevelopment of Former Ship Re-pair Facility in Guam This section would provide that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2019 for the Navy, may be obligated or expended for any con-struction, alteration, repair, or development of the real property consisting of the Former Ship Repair Facility in Guam unless such project directly supports depot-level ship maintenance capabilities, to include the mooring of a floating dry dock. Section 326—Business Case Analysis for Proposed Relocation of J85 Engine Regional Repair Center This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to pre-pare a business case analysis for the proposed relocation of the J85 Engine Regional Repair Center. This section would also withhold funding for the proposed relocation until 150 days after the Sec-retary of the Air Force has provided the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a briefing on the business case analysis. Section 327—Army Advanced and Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence This section would require the Secretary of the Army to establish a Center of Excellence on Advanced and Additive Manufacturing at an arsenal and authorize use of public-private partnerships and other transactional activity to facilitate the development of ad-vanced and additive manufacturing techniques in support of Army industrial facilities. SUBTITLED—REPORTSSection 331—Matters for Inclusion in Quarterly Reports on Personnel and Unit Readiness This section would amend section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense and each military service to report appropriate readiness metrics for cyber and space oper-ations in the existing periodic reporting requirement. This section would further amend section 482 to require combatant commanders to assess their readiness to conduct operations in a multidomain battle, integrating ground, air, sea, space, and cyber forces. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

100 Section 332—Annual Comptroller General Reviews of Readiness of Armed Forces to Conduct Full Spectrum Operations This section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the readiness of the Armed Forces in the warfighting domains of ground, sea, air, space, and cyber annually through 2022. The assessment would be based on metrics estab-lished by the Secretary of Defense and validated by the Comp-troller General, to allow the committee to assess readiness status over time. While the Comptroller General may submit classified re-ports, unclassified versions of the reports should also be provided. The committee understands that military readiness is a result of a commander’s skillful integration of available military personnel, equipment, supplies, and individual and collective training opportu-nities. The committee recognizes that readiness has suffered in all military services in recent years, driven by the erosive effects of the Budget Control Act and the unceasing demand for forces in various theaters of operation. The committee believes that the military services should demonstrate measurable readiness recovery with the additional appropriations made in fiscal year 2017, the addi-tional appropriations made available in fiscal year 2018, as well as funding authorized for fiscal year 2019 in this Act. Section 333—Surface Warfare Training Improvement This section would express the sense of Congress that the Sec-retary of the Navy should establish an assessment process for sur-face warfare officers prior to operational tour assignments and that the Secretary should expand the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) qualification process for surface warfare officers and enlisted navi-gation watch team personnel to improve seamanship and naviga-tion aboard Navy vessels. Further, this section would require the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report on surface warfare officer credentialing, training, and assessment to the congressional de-fense committees not later than March 1, 2019. Section 334—Report on Optimizing Surface Navy Vessel Inspections and Crew Certifications This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report on optimizing surface navy vessel inspections and crew certifications to reduce redundancies and the burden of inspection type visits that ships undergo. Further, this section would require the Secretary of the Navy to provide an interim briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than January 31, 2019, on matters to be included in the required report. The committee notes that following the collisions involving U.S. Navy ships in the western Pacific, the Navy conducted a com-prehensive review of recent surface force incidents. The committee also notes that the Navy’s ‘‘Comprehensive Review of Recent Sur-face Force Incidents’’ identified an overabundance of inspections, certifications, and that ‘‘ships can be subjected to as many as 238 separate inspection, certification, and assist visits in a 36 month period.’’ The Navy’s ‘‘Strategic Readiness Review’’ of these incidents further identified that there ‘‘has been a dramatic increase in the

101 operating tempo of individual ships, and accompanying reductions in the time available to perform maintenance, training, and readi-ness certification.’’ The ‘‘Strategic Readiness Review’’ went on to note that ‘‘sufficient time for training crews and maintaining ships is critical for restoring and monitoring readiness.’’ Given the continued operational demand on the fleet, the com-mittee believes that the Navy should reduce the burden of inspec-tion type visits that ships undergo. SUBTITLEE—OTHERMATTERSSection 341—Coast Guard Representation on Explosive Safety Board This section would amend section 172 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that an officer of the Coast Guard serve as a vot-ing member of the explosive safety board. Section 342—Shiloh National Military Park Boundary Adjustment and Parker’s Crossroads Battlefield Designation This section would modify the boundary of the Shiloh National Military Park located in Tennessee and Mississippi, to establish Parker’s Crossroads Battlefield as an affiliated area of the National Park System. Section 343—Sense of Congress Regarding Critical Minerals This section would express the sense of Congress that aggre-gates, copper, molybendum, gold, zinc, nickel, lead, silver, and cer-tain fertilizer compounds should be added to the ‘‘critical minerals list’’ ordered by Executive Order 13817. TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—ACTIVEFORCESSection 401—End Strengths for Active Forces This section would authorize the following end strengths for Ac-tive Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September 30, 2019: Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recommenda-tion FY 2019 Request FY 2018 Authorized Army …………………………………………………………………….483,500 487,500 487,500 0 4,000 Navy ……………………………………………………………………..327,900 335,400 335,400 0 7,500 USMC ……………………………………………………………………186,000 186,100 186,100 0 100 Air Force ……………………………………………………………….325,100 329,100 329,100 0 4,000 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

102 Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recommenda-tion FY 2019 Request FY 2018 Authorized DOD Total ……………………………………………………..1,322,500 1,338,100 1,338,100 0 15,600 Section 402—Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of September 30, 2019. The committee recommends 487,500 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 335,400 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 186,100 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and 329,100 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air Force. SUBTITLEB—RESERVEFORCESSection 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve This section would authorize the following end strengths for Se-lected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of September 30, 2019: Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recom mendation 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 59,100 0 100 Marine Corps Reserve …………………………………………….38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0 Air National Guard …………………………………………………106,600 107,100 107,100 0 500 Air Force Reserve …………………………………………………..69,800 70,000 70,000 0 200 DOD Total ……………………………………………………..816,900 817,700 817,700 0 800 Coast Guard Reserve ……………………………………………..7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0 Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves This section would authorize the following end strengths for Re-serves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of September 30, 2019: Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recom mendation FY 2019 Request FY 2018 Authorized Army National Guard ………………………………………………30,155 30,595 30,595 0 440 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

103 Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recom mendation FY 2019 Request FY 2018 Authorized Army Reserve …………………………………………………………16,261 16,386 16,386 0 125 Navy Reserve …………………………………………………………10,101 10,110 10,110 0 9 Marine Corps Reserve …………………………………………….2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 Air National Guard …………………………………………………16,260 19,861 19,861 0 3,601 Air Force Reserve …………………………………………………..3,588 3,849 3,849 0 261 DOD Total ……………………………………………………..78,626 83,062 83,062 0 4,436 Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) This section would authorize the following end strengths for mili-tary technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2019: Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recom mendation 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 ¥1,028 0 DOD Total ……………………………………………………..56,801 58,666 56,635 ¥2,031 ¥166 Section 414—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time Na-tional Guard duty during fiscal year 2019 to provide operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section 412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the limitations in sec-tion 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code. Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recom- mendation 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 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

104 Service FY 2018 Authorized FY 2019 Change from Request Committee Recom- mendation FY 2019 Request FY 2018 Authorized DOD Total ……………………………………………………..69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 SUBTITLEC—AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONSSection 421—Military Personnel This section would authorize appropriations for military per-sonnel at the levels identified in the funding table in section 4401 of division D of this Act. TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Active Military Service of the Korean Constabulary The Committee acknowledges the service and sacrifice of the offi-cers and men of the Korean Constabulary formed under the oper-ational command of the United States Military Government in Korea following the end of the Second World War. Organized, trained, equipped, and led by the United States Army, the Korean Constabulary performed vital security missions on behalf of the United States in the interwar period and played a crucial role in the formation and defense of the Republic of Korea. Repeatedly called to defend their homeland against attacks and insurrection by Communist forces allied with the Korean People’s Army and sup-ported by the Soviet Union, the men of the Korean Constabulary fought with distinction in some of the earliest battles of the Cold War. The Committee therefore requests the Secretary of Defense to re-view the eligibility of the officers and men of the Korean Constabu-lary for active military service from November 1945 to January 1949 under the provisions of Section 401 of Public Law 95–202, and report his findings to the House Armed Services Committee by March 1, 2019. Best Practices for Prevention and Response to Sexual Assault The committee commends the Department for its efforts to con-tinuously improve methods to prevent and respond to sexual as-sault. The committee further commends the Air Force’s efforts to utilize evidenced based bystander intervention training previously shown to prevent and reduce power-based personal violence based on the premise that sexual violence can be measurably and system-atically reduced within a community. The Air Force was addition-ally able to consolidate some of the required and annual briefings and shorten the amount of time they spent on training by focusing on quality over quantity. The committee directs the Department to report to the House Armed Services Committee no later than De-cember 1, 2018 on current use of best practices for prevention and response to sexual assault; update on current research informed evaluation outcome criteria, and the feasibility of developing, and VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

105 offering high quality, standardized, research informed best prac-tices for training and response that are shown to prevent sexual as-saults across the services. Briefing on Commissioning Production of Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps The committee is concerned about the number of Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) units that are not meeting estab-lished commissioning production requirements for each of the serv-ices. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military services, to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1, 2019, on the performance of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps. Such briefing shall describe each of the fol-lowing: (1) annual production requirement and production attainment for each ROTC host unit, to include a breakdown of demographics; (2) listing of units that have not met the standards set forth in Department of Defense Instruction 1215.08, for the past 5 years; (3) listing of the units that did not meet the standard in the past 5 years that are now compliant; and (4) list of units each service intends to disestablish or reduce in scope, but is not authorized to do so. Briefing on Credentialing Programs The Committee is supportive of policies which allow servicemembers to attain civilian credentials while on active duty. These programs ensure that servicemembers possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their duties, and offer servicemembers the chance of better civilian employment upon sep-aration from the military. However, not all credentialing programs are created equal, and the Department has acknowledged that few oversight mechanisms exist to protect servicemembers from aggressive marketing of credentialing programs of dubious rigor. The committee encourages the Department to work with partners in academia and industry to develop a tool that servicemembers could use to evaluate the quality of a credential based on its desirability in the civilian work-force. In addition, the Committee is also aware that the Department does not have conclusive evidence that possessing civilian creden-tials help servicemembers find post-separation employment. There-fore, the Committee directs the Department to brief the House Committee on Armed Services no later than February 1, 2019 on collaborative efforts to develop quality standards for credentialing and licensure programs and a review of academic literature on the impact on employability of attaining a credential. Briefing on Department of Defense Inspector General Processing Times The committee is concerned about the steady increase in proc-essing times for Department of Defense Inspector General inves-tigations into whistleblower reprisal and senior leader misconduct complaints. While the Department has conducted past studies into

106 how best to reduce these processing times, and implemented effi-ciency measures, the problem persists. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than July 1, 2019, regarding steps the Department will take to reduce whistleblower reprisal and senior leader misconduct in-vestigation processing times. The briefing shall include: (1) a general timeline for a typical whistleblower reprisal and senior leader misconduct investigation, including identification of phases of the investigation that often require substantial time; (2) whether changes to law or policy would improve the efficiency of these investigations; and (3) whether additional funding, manning, or other resources would improve processing times. Comptroller General Report on Active Duty Female Retention The committee commends the Secretary of Defense for the brief-ing on Female Propensity to serve in the Armed Forces as re-quested in the House Report 115–200. Inclusive and growth-ori-ented recruiting must also ensure that the best and brightest fe-males are not only recruited but that they are retained in the Armed Forces once presented with career options. Building on Fe-male Propensity to serve in the Armed Forces, the committee rec-ommends the Department expand their examination of female re-cruitment to include retention. An analysis conducted for the De-fense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services finds that more women than men leave the military at various career points. Concerns persist that this attrition will result in a disproportionate impact to mission readiness if left unresolved. From an economic standpoint, when female employees leave, organizations must deal with higher recruiting costs, longer training times, and lower pro-ductivity. Therefore, not later December 1, 2018 the committee di-rects Comptroller General to submit a report containing the fol-lowing components: (1) updated rates of promotion and attrition rates for women compared to other groups; (2) the reason for any differences in promotion and attrition; (3) recommendations to im-prove promotion and retention; (4) data and analysis to assist the committee in determining whether there are disparities in pro-motion and attrition rates; and (5) any other matters the commis-sion believes are relevant to this issue. Deconflicting Reserve Component and Expeditionary Civilian Deployments to Provide Adequate Dwell Time The committee notes that according to DoDI 1235.12, Accessing the Reserve Components, issued June 7, 2016, ‘‘The RC provides an operational capability and strategic depth in support of the na-tional defense strategy,’’ and further that if the mobilization-to- dwell ratio for a unit or a member of the RC is less than 1 to 4, Secretary of Defense approval is required. In addition, the Depart-ment of Defense has an expeditionary workforce that includes de-fense civilian personnel who also deploy in support of contingency operations and may also be members of the Reserve Components. The committee is concerned that if the Reserve Components order a member to active duty who is employed as a defense civilian, the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

107 defense agency or military department may not count the member’s previous recent deployment as an RC member when calculating the mobilization-to-dwell ratio. This lack of awareness by the Reserve Components of a civilian employee’s deployment, or alternatively by the military departments or defense agencies about a Reserve Component member’s expeditionary civilian deployment may lead to a lack of sufficient dwell time, with an impact on civilian per-sonnel or RC retention. Therefore, in order to determine the scope of the problem of deconflicting Reserve Component and expeditionary civilian deploy-ments for the purpose of providing adequate dwell time, the Sec-retary of Defense is directed to provide a report to the congres-sional defense committees by Feb. 15, 2019, as to whether the Re-serve Components or the defense agencies and military depart-ments have mechanisms in place to track and account for deploy-ments of defense civilians who are also Reservists; to establish to scale of this problem; and to make recommendations to the com-mittee for procedures to make it possible for the Reserve Compo-nents, and the defense agencies and military departments, to fully account for the service of civilian employees in contingency oper-ations, whether in the RC or as expeditionary civilians. Federal Wildland Firefighting Education in the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) The Committee continues to look for ways to strengthen the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) program to match opportuni-ties in the federal workforce with the unique skillset of transitioning service members. The Committee acknowledges that skills honed during military service including logistics, risk mitiga-tion, emergency medicine and response, team communications, equipment maintenance, resource accountability, and leadership in support of mission are directly transferrable to wildland fire-fighting. While the committee is aware that the Department of De-fense, DHS, and DOL collaborate with other agencies to include in-formation and education about civil service opportunities in the federal workforce, the committee believes transitioning service members would benefit from bolstered TAP program education on wildland firefighting careers at agencies including the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. In addition, the Committee encourages DOD to pursue strategic partnerships and collaborations with non-profit organizations that connect veterans with volunteer disaster relief opportunities as part of TAP. The Committee notes precedent for collaboration with agencies includ-ing USDA that provide education on career pathways in agri-culture and seeks to build on similar successful models of inter-agency partnerships to meet the nation’s workforce needs. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services no later than De-cember 31, 2018 on current and potential interagency efforts in the TAP program related to wildland firefighting career pathways and opportunities in the federal government. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

108 Foreign Area Officer Personnel Training and Career Management The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the military services have developed a corps of foreign area officers and regional affairs strategists and implemented personnel policies to improve their education and training requirements. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 328) required the Secretary to oversee the development and man-agement of a professional workforce supporting security coopera-tion programs and activities of the Department. The committee is concerned with the implementation of this requirement as well as the services’ career management of these officers. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by De-cember 15, 2018, on the implementation of the Security Coopera-tion Workforce Development Program (SCWDP) required by section 384 of title 10, United States Code, and the service career manage-ment plan for foreign area officers. Elements of the briefing shall include: (1) how the Department of Defense SCWDP relates to the foreign area officer programs of the services; (2) how the foreign area officer programs of the services will ben-efit from the Department of Defense SCWDP; (3) how the Secretary of each military department is adapting their foreign area officer program to the National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy; (4) what developmental opportunities the Secretary concerned provides for foreign area officers at each grade to prepare them for positions of greater responsibility; (5) how the Secretary concerned provides promotion opportuni-ties for foreign area officers to serve through General/Flag Officer ranks, and how these compare to other promotion opportunities and rates across the services; (6) ways that the Secretary has coordinated efforts throughout the joint force to achieve the synergies of best practices across the security cooperation enterprise; (7) the steps each service is taking to incorporate the elements required under the scope of the final guidance of the SCWDP, as required under section 384(e)(3) of title 10, United States Code, into the career management of foreign area officers, and the rel-evant challenges; and (8) the steps the Department is taking to evaluate disparate training provided by services and Defense Intelligence Agency, and whether elements of such training should be provided to all De-partment of Defense personnel posted to embassies overseas. Foster and Adoptive Military Families The committee is aware that military families face unique chal-lenges as adoptive and foster families, including, but not limited to, varying jurisdictional standards and support services between states and countries. The committee also notes that it is critical to the well-being of the child that all adoptions are permanent, and that additional information is needed to promote successful adop-tions for military families. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

109 Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a report to the House Armed Services Committee not later than 1 March 2019, describing the barriers and challenges faced by military families to fostering or adopting. The report should in-clude, if applicable, jurisdictional differences between states and between countries; access to information; pre-placement training; and post-placement support services; and causes and/or risks for disruptions or dissolutions of military family adoptions. The report should also include what pre- and post-placement support services are currently available for military families fostering and adopting; the feasibility of establishing additional necessary support services; and recommendations for implementing additional pre- and post- placement services. The report should also include any rec-ommendations from the Secretary to address any barriers and chal-lenges faced by military families to fostering and adopting. Implicit Bias Training The Committee commends the Marine Corps for recognizing the importance of implicit bias and incorporating unconscious bias training when preparing for women joining combat units. Uncon-scious biases, sometimes called implicit biases, are a set of auto-matic preferences so ingrained in people’s brains that they often do not realize they have them. Implicit or unconscious bias dispropor-tionately impacts racial/ethnic minorities and women. Comprehen-sive bias training is research informed and addresses implicit/un-conscious biases. The Marine Corps, civilian educational institu-tions, and the technology and business private sectors have ad-dressed this by including both implicit and explicit bias training. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of expanding its current training to include re-search-informed training addressing implicit bias. Incorporating Consideration of Advanced Technologies into Professional Military Education The Committee understands that a return to great power com-petition represents a key security challenge for the United States in the evolving global threat environment. The rapid development of new technologies in fields including anti-access and area denial weapons, cyber-warfare and electronic warfare, information sys-tems, and other asymmetric fields threatens the U.S. military’s his-torical overwhelming advantage in conventional warfare. Further-more, the Committee is aware that these technologies are increas-ingly commercial and therefore available to both state and non- state actors. The Committee notes that, with this threat in mind, the Depart-ment of Defense is investing heavily in technology to enable contin-ued American military supremacy in an environment characterized by ‘‘rapid technological advancements and the changing character of war,’’ per the National Defense Strategy (NDS). The Committee is also aware that these areas for investment include advanced computing, ‘‘big data’’ analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, robotics, directed energy, hypersonics, and biotechnology. The Committee notes that effective implementation of the NDS require not just research, development and fielding of these ad-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

110 vanced technologies, but also the integration of these technologies into tactical, operational and strategic thought, planning, and training. The Committee is also aware that experimentation and exploration of these technologies is currently occurring in proof of concept programs, exercises, and in operational deployments. The Committee believes, however, that fully integrating ad-vanced technologies into military strategy, operations, and tactics requires a comprehensive approach to considering the impact of these technologies at all levels of decision-making. The Committee is aware of the key role professional military education (PME) pro-grams play in educating military leadership and providing them the conceptual framework for decision-making. The Committee commends the efforts of the Department of Defense to align func-tions to support the goals of the NDS and look for ways to improve lethality. However, it is unclear how decision making under this new strategy is being included in PME education materials. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services on potential ways in which the Department of Defense can appropriately integrate con-sideration of next generation technologies into professional military education programs for military officers and enlisted personnel. This brief should include consideration of the appropriate PME schools, institutions or levels; address the feasibility of expanding civilian enrollment at PME institutions in order to expose military leaders to relevant commercial technology leaders; determine the extent to which these technological developments may require changes to existing warfighting doctrine or operational plans; and identify any relevant opportunities for improvement to the service- level or joint PME programs, as well as any other topics the Sec-retary deems appropriate, and should be delivered to the Com-mittee by December 1, 2018. Interagency Recruitment Cooperation Efforts The committee notes that the current and future recruiting envi-ronment for military service is and will continue to be difficult with a population that has a lower propensity to serve, a recruit pool that is less qualified, and an economy that is robust. In this envi-ronment, the competition for this small pool of recruits will be fierce within the Department of Defense between the services, as well as with other Government agencies. Cooperation between Gov-ernment agencies with regard to recruits will be critical going for-ward, especially those recruits with a propensity to serve but who might not be physically qualified for one service or the other. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by Feb-ruary 1, 2019, on interagency cooperation with regard to recruiting for military and other Government agency service. Elements of the briefing shall include the following: (1) an assessment by the Secretary of the value of cross-Govern-ment agency recruitment and how that would affect Department of Defense recruitment efforts; (2) what policies the Secretary could put in place in cooperation with other agencies to assist with future recruitment needs;

111 (3) what current coordination is being conducted with other agen-cies to assist when recruiting for the Department of Defense or other agencies; and (4) what recommendations the Secretary would make on inter-agency recruiting cooperation. Joint Professional Military Education and Professional Military Education Curricula The committee believes that quality Professional Military Edu-cation (PME) and Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) are integral to developing tomorrow’s strategic leaders. The mili-tary services provide PME at their respective staff and war colleges in order to educate service members in their core competencies ac-cording to service needs. The JPME program places emphasis on preparing leaders to conduct operations as a joint force in complex operating environments. Currently, JPME is provided at multiple sites across the country, including the services’ staff and war col-leges and the National Defense University. The committee remains concerned that the quality and effective-ness of the faculty and curricula at JPME and PME institutions, particularly senior-service colleges, can vary based on service tradi-tion, school location, and faculty. In addition, the committee is con-cerned that certain important subject areas may be excluded from the curricula because of time constraints. The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the Military Depart-ments to evaluate and improve the quality of the education pro-vided at JPME and PME institutions. As a part of this evaluation, the committee encourages the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretaries of the Military Departments to consider wheth-er JPME and PME curricula include exposure to whole-of-govern-ment education, including enrolling students from other Federal departments and agencies, hiring faculty from other Federal de-partments and agencies, and providing courses and programs de-signed to reinforce the importance of whole of government. Military Academy Preparatory School Class Enrollment The committee notes that the mission of the military academies’ preparatory schools is to motivate, prepare, and evaluate selected candidates in an academic, military, moral, and physical environ-ment in order to perform successfully at the military academy. The preparatory school achieves this mission by qualifying cadet can-didates for academy appointments, and developing in those stu-dents a sense of accomplishment and self-confidence that enables them to succeed in a military academy’s demanding environment. Admission to a preparatory school is competitive, with selections made by selection boards. The boards select both enlisted Active Duty and civilian applicants who have applied for admission to an academy, but were not selected for direct entry. The committee is concerned that the average military academy preparatory school class consists of only approximately 25 percent prior-enlisted service members. The committee believes that this percentage is extremely low, and that the services should focus their outreach efforts for attendance to the preparatory schools on VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

112 the qualified enlisted force who has already exhibited propensity to serve. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the Air Force, the Army and the Navy to develop individual service plans with the goal of increasing the enrollment of enlisted service members at each of the Service Academy Preparatory Schools. The Secre-taries concerned shall also provide briefings to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by February 1, 2019, on the new outreach plan and their recommendations for in-creased enlisted member enrollment. Report on Certain Victims’ Rights in Connection with Prosecution of Sex-Related Offenses The committee is concerned about the implementation of section 534 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), which enhances victims’ rights in connection with the prosecution of certain sex-related offenses. Specifically, the committee is inter-ested in how the Department of Defense has implemented the re-quirement that victims be consulted in order to solicit their pref-erence whether the covered offenses should be prosecuted by court- martial or in a civilian court with jurisdiction over the offense. The committee notes that the annual Department of Defense Sexual As-sault Prevention and Response Office report contains statistics on the number of cases prosecuted in civilian courts, but it is not evi-dent from this data whether these civilian prosecutions were in ac-cordance with the wishes of the victim or simply the only option for prosecution of the offenses. Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense In-spector General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2019, on the results of a review of the Department of Defense and military departments’ processes for consulting vic-tims in cases in which section 534 applies. The report shall include a description of who is responsible for consulting with the victim to determine the preference for prosecution; an analysis of whether the military services are complying with the notification require-ment; the method used to record the victim’s preference and convey the information to the relevant authorities; and an analysis of whether the policy is applied consistently across the military serv-ices. Report on Legal Training for Commanders The committee understands that U.S. military commanders are entrusted with a wide range of responsibilities that are necessary to carry out their designated missions. Many of these responsibil-ities involve interpretation of and compliance with legal require-ments. While the committee understands that judge advocates and other legal professionals advise the commanders on many of these subjects, the committee is interested in the full extent and sub-stance of the legal training that commanders receive on the legal authorities with which they have been entrusted. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

113 Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than September 1, 2019, on the following questions: (1) What legal training do officers receive throughout their ca-reers? Who is responsible for this training, and who certifies satis-factory completion? (2) What legal and ethics training do commanders receive prior to taking command? At what level of command are officers required to attend this training? What issues are covered during this train-ing, and is the training tailored to the type of command the officer is assigned to? (3) To what extent and what type of training do commanders re-ceive regarding the following topics: military justice; contract and fiscal law; administrative law; and international and operational law? (4) To what extent are the military services complying with their legal training requirements for new commanders? (5) What resources are available to commanders to assist them in carrying out their legal responsibilities? (6) What procedures are in place to receive feedback on the qual-ity and relevance of the legal training provided to commanders? Is that feedback incorporated into periodic curriculum reviews? Report on Processes for Federal Recognition of Promotion of Commissioned National Guard Officers The committee is concerned that delays in federal recognition of National Guard promotions may be increasing and that these lengthy delays result in National Guard officers being deployed and doing the work of the rank to which they are being promoted while receiving the pay of their current rank. The committee notes that such delays deprive National Guard members of the pay to which they are entitled, reduce their time in rank, and may pose reten-tion problems by giving National Guard members an incentive to leave military service. Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force to each undertake a comprehensive review of the policies and procedures of the Department of the Army and the Department Air Force, as applicable, for the Federal recognition of promotions of commissioned officers of the Army Na-tional Guard and the Air National Guard, as the case may be, and to report the results of this review to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2018. The report shall: (1) describe the average time between receipt by the military de-partment concerned of scrolls (as defined in Department of Defense Instruction 1310.02) indicating the promotion of commissioned offi-cers in the National Guard and their publication during the five- year period ending on the date of the House passage of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019; (2) describe and assess various approaches for streamlining the process by which the military department concerned approves Fed-eral recognition scrolls, including through— (A) additional automation; (B) reduction in required steps; or (C) delegation of authority to conduct required reviews; and (3) make recommendations for legislative or administration ac-tion to implement an approach under paragraph (2) if the Sec-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

114 retary concerned considers such approach feasible, advisable, and appropriate. U.S. Air Force Pilot Staff Requirements Validation The committee remains concerned that the Air Force is having difficulty addressing a persistent pilot shortage. Pilots are vital to the readiness of the Air Force and these shortages may hamper its ability to carry out the 2018 National Defense Strategy, especially as it relates to retention and recruitment within the fighter pilot community. The committee notes that the Air Force provided writ-ten testimony to the committee on March 21, 2018, stating that the Air Force has a shortage of 1,812 pilots across all mission areas, with the most acute shortage being fighter pilots. The Air Force ad-mits it is taking risk by under-filling its required pilot and rated staff officer billets. However, the committee is concerned about the current requirement for pilots in staff billets and the fact that the requirements for pilot skills in these positions have not been vali-dated, nor the requirements reviewed, in many years. An assess-ment of this sort could result in a change in the overall number of required pilots on the staff. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to evaluate and validate every pilot or rated officer required staff billet across the Air Force and joint community enterprise, and to address the recommendations of the Comptroller General ‘‘Report on Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Reevaluate Fighter Pilot Workforce Requirements,’’ (GAO–18–113), and to provide a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representa-tives not later than December 7, 2018, on the methodology and the results of the evaluation and validation as well as the implementa-tion of the recommendations of the GAO Report. U.S. Special Operations Command Preservation of the Force and Families Program Contract Support The committee recognizes that U.S. special operations forces (SOF) and their families are under unique and continued stresses, including psychological, social, spiritual, and human performance strains. The committee commends the success of the Preservation of the Force and Family (POTFF) program. It has helped to allevi-ate the magnitude of these stresses and break the stigma of seek-ing necessary help. It has also decreased rehabilitation time fol-lowing physical injuries. The committee understands U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and component commands have engaged in dialogue with the military services on scaling portions of the program to the broader force. The committee supports this dialogue and encour-ages the transition by SOCOM of resources and management for aspects of POTFF that are scaled to the military services, as well as a continual assessment of what remain as SOF-specific needs. However, with POTFF’s contract due to expire this fiscal year, the committee is concerned by the request for proposal submitted by SOCOM. It once again indicates a domineering focus on human performance, to the detriment of a distinct emphasis on mental, emotional, and behavioral health. The committee notes that of the $88.0 million for POTFF in the budget request for fiscal year 2019, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

115 only $13.0 million was to support the Psychological Performance Program to promote, maintain, and restore the psychological and behavioral health of SOF. With these concerns in mind, the committee directs the Com-mander of Special Operations Command, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 14, 2018, on the future of POTFF. The briefing shall include: (1) how the command plans to balance the emphasis put on the four pillars of the program; (2) an analysis of mental and behavioral health program gaps, to include an in-depth look into POTFF’s suicide-prevention program-ming; and (3) how SOCOM will work with services to identify successful elements that can be transitioned to assist conventional forces and families. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—REGULARCOMPONENTMANAGEMENTSection 501—Expansion of Authority to Award Constructive Serv-ice Credit for Advanced Education, Experience, or Training, upon Original Appointment as a Commissioned Officer This section would amend sections 533 and 12207 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretaries of the military de-partments additional discretion to determine the grade of certain individuals receiving an original appointment as a regular or re-serve commissioned officer. Section 502—Surface Warfare Officers Career Paths This section would amend chapter 602 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new section that would require the Secretary of the Navy to establish two career paths for surface warfare officers. The Secretary would be required to establish one career path in ship engineering systems and another in ship operations and com-bat systems, not later than January 1, 2021. Section 503—Authority of Selection Boards To Recommend Officers of Particular Merit Be Placed at the Top of the Promotion List This section would amend sections 616, 618, and 624 of title 10, United States Code, to allow officer promotion boards to rec-ommend officers of particular merit be placed at the top of the pro-motion list, and to allow the Secretary of the military department concerned to re-order the promotion list accordingly. Section 504—Deferred Deployment for Members Who Give Birth This section would standardize new mother deployment deferral policy across the military services, to include the Coast Guard.

116 Section 505—Codification of Lowered Grade for Retired Officers or Persons Who Committed Misconduct in a Lower Grade This section would amend section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the Secretary concerned has the authority to find that an officer who committed misconduct in a lower grade has not served satisfactorily in any grade equal to or higher than that lower grade. Section 506—Retention of Military Technicians Who Lose Dual Status under Certain Circumstances This section would amend section 10216 of title 10, United States Code, to prevent dual-status military technicians who reach their time-in-service end date from losing their jobs due to separation from military service. SUBTITLEB—RESERVECOMPONENTMANAGEMENTSection 511—Placement of National Guard Military Technicians (Dual Status) in the Competitive Service This section would amend section 10508 of title 10, United States Code, to designate dual-status military technician positions that were converted to title 5 civilian employees in the fiscal year 2017 and 2018 National Defense Authorization Acts as competitive, not excepted, service positions. Section 512—Authorized Strength and Distribution in Grade This section would amend section 12011(a) and section 12012(a) of title 10, United States Code, to increase the total number of available control grade positions, which includes O–4, O–5, O–6, E– 8, and E–9, authorized for the Air National Guard. Section 513—National Guard Promotion Accountability This section would amend section 14308(f) of title 10, United States Code, to allow a National Guard officer’s date of rank to be backdated, after Federal recognition is granted, and would require the Secretaries concerned to report to the Congress when a pro-motion scroll exceeds 200 days between date received and its date of publication. Section 514—Extension of Authority for Pilot Program on Use of Retired Senior Enlisted Members of the Army National Guard as Army National Guard Recruiters This section would extend the authority of the pilot program on use of retired senior enlisted members of the Army National Guard as Army National Guard recruiters until 2021. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

117 SUBTITLEC—GENERALSERVICEAUTHORITIES ANDCORRECTION OFMILITARYRECORDSSection 521—Enlistments Vital to the National Interest This section would modify section 504(b) of title 10, United States Code, to establish additional requirements for enlistments vital to the national interest. Section 522—Statement of Benefits This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide Active Duty and Reserve service members an authoritative assess-ment of their earned GI Bill benefits prior to separation, retire-ment, or release from Active Duty or demobilization. Section 523—Modification to Forms of Support That May Be Ac-cepted in Support of the Mission of the Defense POW/MIA Ac-counting Agency This section would modify the forms of support that may be ac-cepted by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) to in-clude public-private partnerships and the acceptance of gifts that facilitate the accounting of missing persons within the purview of the DPAA mission. Section 524—Correction of Military Records Website This section would amend section 1552(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary concerned to publish sum-maries, indexed by subject matter, of all decisions published on the board for correction of military records website of each military de-partment. Section 525—Modification of DD Form 214 to Include Email Addresses This section would require the Secretary of Defense to modify the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to include a specific block explicitly identified as the location in which a member of the Armed Forces may provide one or more email addresses by which the member may be contacted. Section 526—Public Availability of Reports Related to Senior Leader Misconduct This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Sec-retaries of the military departments to publish, on a public website, redacted reports of substantiated investigations of misconduct in which the subject of the investigation was an officer in the grade of O–7 and above, including officers who have been selected for pro-motion to O–7, or a civilian member of the Senior Executive Serv-ice. Section 527—Appointment and Training of Personnel to Staff the Board of Corrections for Military and Naval Records This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consulta-tion with the service secretaries and the joint chiefs, to provide for VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

118 the appointment and training of qualified personnel to join the staff of the Boards of Correction for Military and Naval Records, and would authorize $3.0 million to carry out the training, to be taken from the Military Personnel Appropriations line. SUBTITLED—MILITARYJUSTICESection 531—Minimum Confinement Period Required for Convic-tion of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces This section would amend section 856(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code (article 56(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Jus-tice), to require a minimum confinement period of 2 years for indi-viduals convicted of certain sex-related offenses. Section 532—Punitive Article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice on Domestic Violence This section would amend subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to add a new section 928a regarding domestic violence. Section 533—Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces This section 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 require the Department of Defense to provide information to the Defense Advisory Com-mittee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces that the panel (by majority vote) deems nec-essary to carry out its duties. Section 534—Modification of Military Rules of Evidence To Exclude Admissibility of General Military Character Toward Probability of Innocence in Any Offense Not Strictly Related to Performance of Military Duties This section would amend Rule 404(a) of the Military Rules of Evidence contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial to provide that the general military character of an accused is not admissible for the purpose of showing the probability of innocence of the ac-cused unless the offense the individual is charged with is strictly and solely related to the performance of military duties. Section 535—Improved Crime Reporting This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a consolidated tracking process that provides the Department of Defense increased visibility on the military departments’ required crime report submissions to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Section 536—Oversight of Registered Sex Offender Management Program This section would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a single official or entity within the Office of the Secretary of De-fense to serve as the official or entity with principal responsibility VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

119 for providing oversight of the registered sex offender management program of the Department. SUBTITLEE—OTHERLEGALMATTERSSection 541—Security Clearance Reinvestigation of Certain Personnel Who Commit Certain Offenses This section would amend section 1564 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a security clearance background reinvestigation under expedited procedures for flag officers and Senior Executive Service personnel employed by the Department of Defense convicted of sexual assault, sexual harassment, fraud against the United States, or other serious crimes. Section 542—Consideration of Application for Transfer for a Stu-dent of a Military Service Academy Who Is the Victim of a Sex-ual Assault or Related Offense This section would require the Secretary concerned to expedite the consideration and approval of an application for an inter-acad-emy transfer submitted by a cadet of a military academy who has been the victim of sexual assault. Section 543—Standardization of Policies Related to Expedited Transfer in Cases of Sexual Assault This section would require the Secretary of Defense to stand-ardize the expedited transfer procedures for service members who are the victim of sexual assault, regardless of whether their cases are handled by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Pro-gram or the Family Advocacy Program, and would require the Sec-retary to establish a transfer policy for service members whose de-pendent is the victim of sexual assault perpetrated by an unrelated service member. Section 544—Development of Oversight Plan for Implementation of Department of Defense Harassment Prevention and Response Policy This section would require the Department of Defense to develop an oversight plan and provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives for implementation of the Department of Defense Harassment Preven-tion and Response policy. Section 545—Development of Resource Guides Regarding Sexual Assault for the Military Service Academies This section would require each Superintendent of a military service academy to develop and maintain a resource guide on sex-ual assault, and distribute the guide to all cadets and midshipmen at the academies. Section 546—Report on Victims in MCIO Reports This section would require the Secretary of Defense, through the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigations, Prosecutions, and VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

120 Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, to provide a report every 2 years on the frequency with which victims of sexual of-fenses identified in military criminal investigative organization cases are accused of or punished for misconduct considered collat-eral to the investigation of sexual assault. SUBTITLEF—MEMBEREDUCATION, TRAINING, RESILIENCE, ANDTRANSITIONSection 551—Permanent Career Intermission Program This section would amend chapter 40 of title 10, United States Code, by adding section 710 and removing all references to the pro-gram as a pilot program, making the Career Intermission Program a permanent authority. Section 552—Improvements to Transition Assistance Program This section would amend section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, to establish counseling pathways, require transmission of the Joint Service transcript, and allow transitioning service members to select a portion of the content covered during the transition as-sistance period of instruction. Section 553—Employment and Compensation of Civilian Faculty Members at the Joint Special Operations University This section would amend section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, to add the Joint Special Operations University to the list of covered institutions with authority to hire civilian faculty under title 10. Section 554—Program To Assist Members of the Armed Forces in Obtaining Professional Credentials This section would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to further assist members of the Armed Forces in obtaining professional credentials. Section 555—Extension of Pilot Program To Assist Members in Obtaining Post-Service Employment This section would amend section 555 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) to extend the authority for the pilot program under this section to September 30, 2023. Section 556—Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members of the Reserve Components and Veterans This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program that provides enhanced job placement and employ-ment assistance for members of the National Guard and Reserve.

121 Section 557—Extended Duration of Availability of Military OneSource Program Services for Members of the Armed Forces Upon Their Separation or Retirement This section would extend the duration of availability of Military OneSource program services for members of the military depart-ments and their immediate family members from 180 days fol-lowing their separation or retirement to at least 1 year after their separation or retirement. Section 558—Comptroller General Briefing and Report on Permanent Employment Assistance Centers This section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, with a report to follow, on employment assistance required under law and related informa-tion regarding civilian employment certification. Section 559—Activities To Increase Awareness of Apprenticeship Programs This section would require the Secretary of Defense to include, as part of service members’ transition counseling, information on apprenticeship programs and the use of veterans’ benefits to pay for these programs. SUBTITLEG—DEFENSEDEPENDENTS’ EDUCATION ANDMILITARYFAMILYREADINESSMATTERSSection 561—Enhancement and Clarification of Family Support Services for Family Members of Members of Special Operations Forces This section would amend section 1788a of title 10, United States Code, to provide greater flexibility to support the family require-ments to tactical units by increasing funds available for Major Force Program 11 from $5.0 million to $10.0 million. This section would also define the term ‘‘family support services’’’ to provide clarity and authorize proper expenditures of appropriated funds. Section 562—Additional Matters for Assessment and Report on Childcare Services of the Department of Defense This section would add additional issues for assessment related to military family childcare under section 575 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). Section 563—Continued Assistance to Schools With Significant Numbers of Military Dependent Students This section would authorize $40.0 million for the purpose of pro-viding assistance to local educational agencies with military de-pendent students and $10.0 million for local educational agencies eligible to receive a payment for children with severe disabilities. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

122 Section 564—Department of Defense Education Activity Misconduct Database This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive policy and database regarding juvenile misconduct occurring in Department of Defense Education Activity schools. Section 565—Report on Assessment of Frequency of Permanent Changes of Station of Members of the Armed Forces on Employ-ment Among Military Spouses This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on the impact that frequent permanent changes of station of service members have on military spouses. SUBTITLEH—DECORATIONS ANDAWARDSSection 571—Limitations on Authority To Revoke Certain Military Decorations Awarded to Members of the Armed Forces This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to add a new section that restricts the President and service secretaries from revoking a military decoration after the actual award of the military decoration to the service member except under limited cir-cumstances. Section 572—Authorization for Award of Expeditionary Medal to Certain Marines for Actions on June 8, 1995 This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to award the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal to a member or former member of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit for the mission to rescue Captain Scott O’Grady. SUBTITLEI—MISCELLANEOUSREPORTS ANDOTHERMATTERSSection 581—Public Availability of Top-Line Numbers of Deployed Members of the Armed Forces This section would require the Secretary of Defense to publicly make available the top-line numbers of members of the Armed Forces deployed for each country. The Secretary would be able to waive the requirement in the case of a sensitive military operation if he determines the public disclosure of such numbers could reasonably be expected to provide an operational military advantage to an adversary, or the members of the Armed Forces are deployed for less than 30 days. Section 582—Criteria for Interment at Arlington National Cemetery This section would require the Secretary of the Army to establish revised interment criteria for Arlington National Cemetery that preserve Arlington National Cemetery as an active burial ground well into the future. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

123 Section 583—Report on General and Flag Officer Costs This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the costs of sup-porting general and flag officers. Section 584—Report on Outside Employment of Senior Personnel This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report on senior leader outside employment requests and activities. Section 585—Limitation on Use of Funds Pending Submittal of Report on Army Marketing and Advertising Program This section would limit the use of funds to not more than 60 percent of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Army Marketing and Research Group for fiscal year 2019, used for advertising and marketing activities to be obligated or ex-pended until the Secretary of the Army submits a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on recommendations of the Army Audit Agency’s audit of the Army’s Marketing and Advertising Program concerning contract oversight and return on investment. TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Availability of Alcohol at Military Commissary Stores The Committee notes the recent announcement made by the De-partment of Defense on the availability of beer and wine at mili-tary commissary stores in order to provide a similar shopping expe-rience to commercial grocery stores. In light of these measures, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the feasibility of expanding com-missary alcohol sales to include the sale of distilled spirits. The study shall include a comparison of state and local laws that could impact the expansion of the sale of distilled spirits. The study shall also include an estimate on revenue and sales that could result from such an expansion. The Secretary shall provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on the detailed findings of the study no later than September 28, 2018. Examination of Flexible/Noncontinuous Maternity Leave The Committee commends the Department for granting up to 84 days for service members following child birth. Although current maternity and parental leave policies are a strong step in the right direction, more can be done to tailor leave to families’ unique situa-tions. Continuing its work from 2015 and 2016, Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) examined issues and concerns surrounding pregnancy, the postpartum period, and parenthood. There is evidence to suggest that Service mem-bers’ ability to maintain work-life balance is one of the military’s VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

124 top retention challenges, with service members expressing concern that a military career is incompatible with having a family. In its most recent report, DACOWITS recommends the Secretary of De-fense consider allowing the Military Services to permit flexible (noncontinuous) use of maternity and parental leave if requested by the military parent(s). Allowing flexible (noncontinuous) use of maternity and parental leave is a strategy mentioned by DACOWITS and modeled by leading companies in the private sec-tor. This is one potential way to support a servicemember after a child joins the member’s family. Noncontinuous leave, when re-quested, could help servicemembers better balance their unique family needs during critical junctures of their lives and, in turn, help support retention efforts. Therefore, not later than December 1, 2018 the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report assessing the feasibility of permitting flexible (noncontin-uous) use of maternity leave. Imminent Danger Pay Adjudication Process The committee acknowledges that servicemembers continue to serve in locations at daily risk of harm from hostile fire, explosions, or other hostile actions, and are thus entitled to Imminent Danger Pay. The committee understands that, regarding the locations and time periods for Imminent Danger Pay eligibility, the final adjudi-cating authority for the Department of Defense is the Under Sec-retary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who assesses re-quests submitted by geographic Combatant Commanders. The com-mittee has received recent testimony that this request, adjudica-tion, and approval process can span many months, during which servicemembers in harm’s way are not receiving Imminent Danger Pay. So that Congress may improve its oversight of the timeliness of Imminent Danger Pay review and approval, the committee di-rects the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to submit a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, not later than August 31, 2018, listing, for the period 2008–2018: (1) each request for Imminent Danger Pay made by a geographic Combatant Commander, including details on the underlying jus-tification for Imminent Danger Pay; (2) the date of submission for each request; (3) the adjudication status and/or ultimate determination for each request; and, (4) date of ultimate determination, where applicable. Small Business Purchasing Contracts for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables for the Defense Commissary Agency (‘‘DeCA’’) The Committee commends DeCA for its efforts to achieve cost savings and provide patrons with an improved shopping experi-ence. DeCA strives to maintain a good record of including small businesses in its acquisition practices including the acquisition of fresh fruits and vegetables through utilizing small businesses. These small businesses are best positioned to provide quality and fresh produce because of their proximity to commissaries and have traditionally provided these products at competitive prices. As the transformation proceeds the Committee encourages DeCA to con-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

125 tinue to utilize small businesses for the acquisition of quality fresh fruits and vegetables. Therefore, the Committee directs the Sec-retary of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2018 on the efforts to continue to utilize small businesses for fresh fruits and vegetables. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—PAY ANDALLOWANCESSection 601—Prompt Review of Request for Imminent Danger Pay This section would amend section 310 of title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to issue a determination, within 90 days, when a geographic combatant commander submits a request to add a location to the Imminent Danger Pay eligibility list. Section 602—Application of Basic Allowance for Housing to Members of the Uniformed Services in the Virgin Islands This section would amend section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to apply Basic Allowance for Housing to service members in the Virgin Islands. Section 603—Mandatory Increase in Insurance Coverage Under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance for Members Deployed to Combat Theaters of Operation This section would amend section 1967(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, to mandate, in the case of a member who elects to not be insured under a Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance plan at the full $400,000 available, the member’s insurance will automati-cally increase to $400,000 if they are deployed to a combat zone. Section 604—Military Housing Privatization Initiative This section would assure that the Basic Allowance for Housing reduction directed by section 403 of title 10, United States Code, would not take effect in fiscal year 2019, ensuring that the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) housing recapitalization efforts are not reduced. The committee remains concerned about the reduction in BAH and its effect on the recapitalization of these housing units. The committee believes that military families must be provided with on-base housing that is safe and periodically mod-ernized. Additionally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to present a plan to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by December 1, 2018, to provide for a permanent financial solution to the long term MHPI recapitalization problem. Section 605—Per Diem Allowance Policies This section would halt implementation of the 2014 Department of Defense per diem policy, direct the Secretary of Defense to issue a report on options to reduce travel costs, and require notification of any subsequent changes to the per diem policies following the re-port.

126 SUBTITLEB—BONUSES ANDSPECIALINCENTIVEPAYSSection 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Expiring Bonus and Special Pay Authorities This section would extend, through December 31, 2019, income replacement payments for Reserve Component members experi-encing extended and frequent mobilization for Active Duty service; would extend two critical recruitment and retention incentive pro-grams for Reserve Component health care professionals; would ex-tend accession and retention incentives for nuclear-qualified offi-cers; and would extend the consolidated special and incentive pay authorities added to subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). Additionally, this section would extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a tem-porary increase in the rates of basic allowance for housing other-wise prescribed for a military housing area or a portion of a mili-tary housing area if the military housing area or portion thereof is located in an area covered by a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists. SUBTITLEC—OTHERMATTERSSection 621—Expansions of Installation Benefits to Surviving Spouses, Dependent Children, and Other Next of Kin This section would amend section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide lifetime instal-lation access to Gold Star spouses and their dependent children for the purposes of attending memorial services, visiting gravesites, and accessing survivor services to which they are already entitled. Additionally, this section would provide the Secretary discretion to provide similar access to other surviving family members and re-quire access reciprocity between the military services, and would extend access to base commissaries, exchanges, and other recre-ation facilities for all remarried surviving military spouses for as long as they have surviving dependent children under their guard-ianship. Section 622—Transportation on Military Aircraft on a Space-Avail-able Basis for Disabled Veterans With a Service-Connected, Per-manent Disability Rated as Total This section would amend section 2641b of title 10, United States Code, to authorize space-available travel for disabled veterans with a service-connected, permanent disability rated as total. Section 623—Extension of Parking Expenses Allowance to Civilian Employees at Recruiting Facilities This section would amend section 481i of title 37, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to reimburse military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense for parking ex-penses at recruiting facilities. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

127 Section 624—Advisory Boards Regarding Military Commissaries and Exchanges This section would require the Secretary of Defense to direct in-stallation commanders to establish an advisory board to advise commanders regarding the interests of patrons and beneficiaries of military commissaries and exchanges. Section 625—Study and Report on Development of a Single Defense Resale System This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of consolidating the military re-sale entities into a single defense resale system and would prohibit the use of funds in fiscal year 2019 for any action on consolidation by the Secretary of Defense. TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Advanced Pain Management Fellows Program The committee is aware of the importance of pain management health care providers across the Military Health System. More spe-cifically, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are qualified pain practitioners who work in various practice settings to treat patients suffering from a wide range of acute and chronic pain conditions. CRNA chronic pain management practitioners are able to minimize the use of opioids to address chronic pain through the use of a multimodal approach that includes pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain mitigation strategies. Furthermore, the ho-listic approach that CRNA pain management practitioners employ when treating their chronic pain patients may reduce the reliance on opioids as a primary pain management modality, thus aiding in the reduction of potential adverse drug events related to opioids. The committee believes advanced pain management fellowship pro-grams for CRNAs may enhance comprehensive pain management. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secre-taries of the military departments to consider advanced pain man-agement fellowship programs for CRNAs as part of their respective long-term health education and training programs. Athletic Trainers The Committee understands that athletic trainers provide in-valuable services to many people and organizations. However, the Committee notes that athletic trainers are not included on the TRICARE authorized provider list. Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services by 1 February 2019, that examines the potential uses of civilian athletic trainers within the TRICARE pro-gram, the reimbursement structure for athletic trainers for Medi-care or other commensurate federal health programs, and an as-sessment of credentialing organizations that may help facilitate a standardized accreditation process for athletic trainers. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

128 Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) The Committee commends the Department of Defense for focus-ing a significant amount of research on studying military relevant injuries related to traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Committee ac-knowledges the importance of this research but would also like to better understand the potential link between TBI and chronic trau-matic encephalopathy (CTE). CTE is a neurodegenerative disorder that involves the progressive accumulation of the protein tau in nerve cells within certain regions of the brain. As the tau protein accumulates, it disturbs function and appears to lead to symptoms seen in affected patients with multiple head trauma. In 2013, a senior Department of Defense official stated, ‘‘we are learning through the process of discovery the effects of repetitive mild trau-matic brain injury and also how to prevent this issue of chronic traumatic encephalopathy’’. Research on CTE has made significant advancements, but there are still gaps in research between TBI and CTE and understanding the status and progress of CTE efforts within the military is of critical importance. Therefore, the Com-mittee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with Secre-taries of the military departments, to provide a report on CTE re-search in the military to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 1 April 2019. This report shall include an assessment of the gaps between CTE and TBI research, current funding levels, ongoing research studies, CTE related initiatives to track and monitor service-mem-bers, and ongoing research efforts with the National Institutes of Health, executive agencies and civilian academic and research or-ganizations. Comprehensive Women’s Health for Active Duty The committee recognizes that as the population of women in the military increases and more women seek additional opportunities in direct combat units and throughout the joint force, it is critical that women’s health is addressed comprehensively to optimize health and readiness. The committee notes the efforts of Navy Medicine with the establishment of the Women’s Health Clinical Community and the piloting of a comprehensive clinic at Naval Medical Center, San Diego, to address the complex needs of the Ac-tive Duty female population. Guided by feedback from clinical and non-clinical stakeholders and evidence-based research, the com-prehensive women’s health clinic addresses women’s health in a pa-tient-centered manner integrating perinatal, women’s health, men-tal health, and force readiness. As the Military Health System transitions military treatment facilities from the services to the De-fense Health Agency, the committee encourages the inclusion of similar health clinics where appropriate to improve the readiness of women in the force. Department of Defense Action Plan for Countering Infectious Diseases The committee acknowledges the important work across the De-partment of Defense in the areas of preventive medicine and infec-tious disease. The 2014 Ebola outbreak demonstrated the need for a prompt and efficient response to a highly infectious disease out-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

129 break. It also demonstrated that in the future, the U.S. military may be expected to assume a primary role in responding to such crises. The likelihood of a future regional and global infectious dis-ease crisis is high, and the lessons learned from the 2014 Ebola cri-sis are directly applicable to the next potential infectious disease outbreak. It is therefore critical that the Department of Defense consider lessons learned from previous outbreaks. In addition, the Department must take action to promote force health protection from emerging infectious diseases while preparing to support mis-sions in areas of increased risk or military operations supporting international response within a future public health emergency. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Re-sponse at the Department of Health and Human Services, to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than June 1, 2019, on the development of an action plan fo-cused on efforts to counter emerging infectious disease threats. This briefing should identify capability gaps; actions taken to im-prove point-of-care diagnostics linked to disease surveillance and information-sharing networks; examine infectious disease emer-gency response teams; capabilities for medical evacuation of pa-tients with high consequence infections; gaps in infection preven-tion and control standards; and research efforts focused on medical countermeasures. Diabetes Prevention Program The committee notes there are an estimated 30 million Ameri-cans with diabetes but only approximately 50,000 military mem-bers or their family members have the disease. However, the com-mittee understands that the number of military beneficiaries with diabetes increases to more than 200,000 for retirees and their fam-ily members who are under the age of 65 and doubles to over 400,000 for those beneficiaries in the TRICARE for Life, Medicare- eligible population. If not treated, those with diabetes face higher risks of heart disease, kidney failure, limb amputations, and blind-ness. The committee is aware that Medicare expanded its diabetes prevention pilot program to provide coverage for all eligible at-risk beneficiaries with prediabetes who are aged 65 years or older, which has led to substantial health care savings as well as reduc-ing the risk of patients developing type 2 diabetes. Given the detri-mental health impact of diabetes as well as the increased costs in-curred for direct treatment and comorbid medical complications of this disease, prevention programs addressing the vulnerability of at-risk TRICARE beneficiaries should be closely examined. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2019, that examines the feasibility of using a similar program for TRICARE beneficiaries to prevent diabetes, improve health, and reduce health care costs. Direct Report Language on National Guard Mental Health The Committee remains concerned about the high rate of sui-cides in the reserve component and specifically, within the Army National Guard. The Committee is aware of numerous efforts by VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

130 the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to increase access and re-sources for Guardsmen to receive behavioral health treatment and support. The Committee also supports the establishment of a more integrated and holistic approach to resilience and fitness across the National Guard to better assess and improve the operational readi-ness of Guardsmen by carrying out pilot programs as required. Therefore, the Committee directs the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than 1 March 2019, on the effectiveness of Na-tional Guard Bureau behavioral health programs like resiliency, suicide prevention, and other mental health outreach efforts. Exceptional Family Member Program The committee notes the purpose of the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) is to provide comprehensive and coordi-nated community support, housing, educational, medical, and per-sonnel services worldwide to military families with children with special needs. The committee is concerned that with over 100,000 families participating in the EFMP and inconsistent application of the Department of Defense policy across the services, there are families who are inadvertently disadvantaged by not having an in-dividualized service plan. The committee is also concerned that the Department of Defense and military services lack the common per-formance measures and outcome metrics to assess assignment co-ordination and family support. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to de-velop a plan consisting of common performance metrics for assign-ment coordination and family support, including best practices for performance measurement; a systematic process for evaluating the results of monitoring activities conducted by each of the military services program; and a review to determine the feasibility of cre-ating interstate compacts as a requirement for schools supporting EFMP students. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2019, on this plan. GAO Audit of TRICARE The committee notes that during the 2018 transition of TRICARE managed care support contractors, many issues related to network adequacy arose, which affected beneficiary access to care, specifically access to mental health services. There is evidence that mental health providers from the East and West regions re-ceived new contracts that include a proposed 30% discount off Ci-vilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) rates. With the limited options and resources that TRICARE beneficiaries currently have, these discounts will further jeopardize the mental health of military members, veterans, and their families who rely on TRICARE for their basic needs. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of the Defense Health Agency’s (DHA) oversight of the transition of TRICARE managed care support contractors for its TRICARE re-gions. The Comptroller General shall provide a report to the Com-

131 mittee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by Sep-tember 30, 2019 detailing the extent to which (i) DHA provided guidance and oversight to the outgoing and incoming managed care support contractors; (ii) there were any issues with health care de-livery, and if so, the effect, if at all, DHA’s guidance and oversight during the transition period had on these issues as well as DHA’s resolutions for remediating any managed care support contractors’ deficiencies; and (iii) DHA has reviewed any lessons learned from prior transitions and incorporated them into the current transition. Global Health Engagement Organization Consolidation The committee recognizes the Department of Defense’s efforts to develop global health engagement (GHE) capabilities that have be-come an integral part of combatant command security cooperation initiatives. These activities are used to improve military health pro-fessional readiness and interoperability by providing important training opportunities and experiences in operational settings with partner nations. However, the committee is concerned that there is duplication of effort with the Defense Institute for Medical Oper-ations. The Defense Institute for Medical Operations supports over-seas train-the-trainer programs on topics such as disaster manage-ment, force health protection, health surveillance, and other areas of health practice. As part of the Uniformed Services University of Health Science (USUHS) mission to support military readiness, the Center for Global Health Engagement was established by the Department of Defense to provide an enterprise-wide hub for GHE to support the combatant commands with leadership and scholarship; strategic and operational support to the joint force; training and professional development; management of GHE-related research; and assess-ment, monitoring, and evaluation activities. The committee believes USUHS provides a vital nexus of education and training for the Military Health System and may serve as an important support platform that provides economies of scale related to training, edu-cation, campus locations, and infrastructure support. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1, 2019, on the feasibility of consolidating and inte-grating the capabilities of the Center for Global Health Engage-ment and the Defense Institute of Medical Operations into one or-ganization. Improving Delivery of Mental Health Services The committee acknowledges the efforts of the Department of De-fense and the military services to diagnose and treat military mem-bers suffering from mental health disorders. The committee com-mends the Department for systems it has in place to ensure service members receive standard of care for disorders where clinical evi-dence has informed best practices for treatment. However, there is room for improvement: the MHS lacks an enterprise wide system to accurately and consistently track care, cost, and implementation of evidence based quality medical and behavioral health thera-peutic services for mental health disorders. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

132 Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than De-cember 1, 2018 on the following: (1) feasibility study for creating a formalized methodology for tracking, measuring, and reporting across the MHS to ensure delivery of cost effective, evidence based quality treatments; (2) data and analysis to assist the committee in determining whether there are challenges to implementing evi-dence based mental health treatments for military personnel; (3) recommendations for addressing the current translation of innova-tive biomarker and neuroimaging diagnostics and research findings into practice; (4) any other matters the Secretary of Defense be-lieves are relevant to this issue. Improving Health Care Choices for Severely Injured Service Members The committee seeks to better serve severely disabled veterans who are entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The committee directs the Sec-retary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Human Health Services and the Commissioner of Social Security, to report on the total number of individuals who are retired from the Armed Services under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code; entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title XVIII of the So-cial 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 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. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit the results of the report to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2018. Joint Advanced Orthopedic Surgical Training The committee is aware of the importance of limiting musculo-skeletal injuries (MSKI), which on average result in 21,000 shoul-der and knee arthroscopies affecting service members per year. The committee also recognizes that military orthopedic surgeons may be challenged to participate in civilian training partnerships to maintain or learn specialized techniques needed to care for military beneficiaries due to operational missions. These training challenges may have a significant impact on both the readiness of military personnel and the costs associated with MSKI for the Department of Defense. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to consider joint ad-vanced orthopedic surgical training partnerships as an integral component of their respective long-term health education and training programs. Mental Health Care in the Military Health System The committee commends the Department of Defense and mili-tary services’ significant efforts over the past decade to aggres-sively improve treatment of traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-trau-matic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), and other mental health issues. The committee also recog-nizes the importance of research and innovation being made in the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

133 treatment of brain disease and the need to improve collaboration between the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and medical research translation offices at major universities. As the Military Health System transitions the operations of the military treatment facili-ties (MTF) from the military services to the Defense Health Agen-cy, the committee notes this area of research and treatment needs aggressive oversight. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, to sub-mit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2019, on the plan for the Military Health System to provide mental health care services as part of the transition of the MTFs. This report shall include an assessment of how mental health care providers will be arranged within the command structure of the Defense Health Agency, how mental health care policy and processes will be managed within the Defense Health Agency to deliver mental health care services to members of the Armed Forces and covered beneficiaries; the ability of each service Surgeon General to main-tain the readiness of the military health workforce to deliver men-tal health care services operationally in support of deployed forces. In addition, this report shall include a plan to accelerate innovation and delivery of treatments for TBI, CTE and PTSD to members of the Armed Forces and covered beneficiaries through improved co-ordination of behavioral health research and development efforts across the federal government, academic institutions, and industry; inclusion of evidence-based suicide prevention programs; promotion of acquisition strategies that utilize other transaction authorities to accelerate development and delivery of promising breakthrough therapies for TBI, CTE and PTSD; facilitation of public-private in-vestment partnerships to pursue psychiatric and brain disease treatments; and plans to expeditiously field Food and Drug Admin-istration—cleared pharmaceuticals and medical devices that pro-vide clinicians with therapeutics and tools for rapid, accurate as-sessments of traumatic brain injury and PTSD. Military Entrance Processing Command Physical Examination Model The committee acknowledges the critical mission U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM) performs throughout the United States. An important component of the MEPCOM mis-sion is ensuring prospective service members are provided a phys-ical examination as part of the military accession process. However, the committee is concerned that MEPCOM is unable to ensure these physical examinations are provided in a timely manner. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than January 15, 2019, that evaluates the commercially distributed physical ex-amination model being used by the Department of Defense Medical Examination Board and explores the feasibility of the MEPCOM contracting for physical examination services. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

134 Military Nurse Work Experience The committee is aware that military nurses provide critical sup-port across the Military Health System. However, national nursing shortages and vigorous salary and bonus competition for journey- level nurses has impacted the ability of the military to attract more experienced nurses to civil service. The inability to compete for nurses, coupled with restrictive Federal guidelines that dictate the hiring of new graduate nurses at considerably lower salaries than civilian counterparts, has in some instances created significant compensation disparity between military treatment facilities and hospitals in the local community. Additionally, a recent change to the Office of Personnel Management policy may limit applicant pools and adversely impact the ability of military treatment facili-ties to foster growth and development of current employees who have completed additional education and obtained further licen-sure. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to work with the Office of Personnel Management to consider new qualifica-tion and classification standards for military nurses. Military Nutrition and Diet Planning The committee understands that a significant number of Active Duty military can currently be considered obese. This likely leads to additional health care costs and loss of military readiness, with too many Active Duty soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen unable to deploy due to illness or injury. To ensure that our military is ready to fight today and in the future, on February 14, 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued policy guidance to the military services that states: ‘‘Service mem-bers who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months, for any reason, will be processed for administrative sepa-ration . . . .’’ With this renewed emphasis on military personnel policies necessary to provide a more ready and lethal force, the committee is concerned that the Department of Defense lacks a co-hesive, science-based approach to diet and nutrition that supports that goal. It is incumbent upon the Department to ensure our serv-ice members are trained and resourced in ways that will allow them to perform duties necessary to remain in a full-duty and deployable status. Healthy food options are a key component of this effort. The committee is aware that the Department has funded re-search on optimal nutritional approaches that promote performance and reduce illness, injury, and other health problems in order to ensure that deployable personnel are prepared for worldwide as-signments. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2019, detailing this research and its conclusions. The briefing should include, among other aspects, an overview of studies that fo-cused on the usage of low carbohydrate diets, which show prom-ising outcomes for physiological and performance factors key to warfighter readiness and effectiveness. Additionally, the briefing should discuss the use of standard dietary guidelines as defined by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as well as any other available comparisons. The briefing should also include systemic VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

135 factors that inhibit the delivery of food options other than those de-fined by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans to service mem-bers at Department of Defense dining facilities and other venues. Finally, this briefing should include the plan for a Department- wide approach to diet and nutrition that incorporates performance- based outcomes in support of warfighter readiness. Mitigating Work Place Violence in Military Treatment Facilities The committee notes that the Department of Defense incor-porated many of the recommendations into policy to address work-place violence following the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting review. The committee is concerned that there are still gaps in the implementa-tion of the policies with respect to establishing Threat Assessment Teams in Military Treatment Facilities. This is evident by the 2016 incident at Ft. Leavenworth hospital when an employee set his su-pervisor on fire. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Armed Service Com-mittee no later than 1 March 2019 on the establishment of the Threat Assessment Teams at Military Treatment Facilities and the training provided to the members of the team. Orthotics for New Recruits Custom orthotics are offered to servicemembers in some cir-cumstances with a referral from their primary care provider, how-ever it is the understanding of the committee that there is cur-rently not a uniform method for providing orthotics to servicemembers across the joint force. With over 70% of muscular- skeletal injuries affecting the lower extremities, higher priority must be placed on injury prevention, which will likely reduce the cost of treatment and increase force readiness. The committee therefore directs the Secretaries of each service to seek advice from the orthopedic and podiatric consultants residing within each branch of the Armed Forces regarding the benefits of prescribing and dispensing custom orthotics to each new recruit upon entering the military, and follow up with a briefing to Congress no later than April 1, 2019. Periodic Health Assessment Analysis The committee notes the continued progress in reforming the De-partment of Defense Periodic Health Assessment (PHA). The De-partment implemented the new electronic PHA in February 2018. The new PHA is designed to accomplish multiple requirements and provide standardized health assessment data that can be analyzed and compared across all military services, as well as to national standards. The PHA includes a comprehensive health risk assess-ment using evidence-based diagnostic tools validated and rec-ommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and clinical specialty leaders. This is a systematic collection and anal-ysis of health-related information for use by service members, health care providers, and health care teams to identify and sup-port beneficial health behaviors and mutually work to direct changes in potentially harmful health behaviors. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to continue to reform the PHA and use pre-

136 dictive analytics to examine population health factors and trend analysis to better understand comprehensive health risk assess-ment and improve the readiness of the force. Podiatric Surgeons in the Military The committee is concerned that surgically advanced military po-diatrists are not presented with the same administrative opportu-nities as surgeons and doctors of other medical disciplines, and have historically had few opportunities for positions of leadership across the military medical enterprise. Podiatric surgery, as a med-ical discipline in the Armed Forces, has evolved over the last sev-eral decades, including an additional 3-year surgical residency re-quirement for all military podiatric surgeons. Podiatrists have in-creasingly deployed to combat zones overseas, serving in a variety of ways to meet the surgical needs of our warfighters. Moreover, podiatric surgeons remain in the Medical Service Corps in the Army and Navy, and the Biomedical Science Corps in the Air Force. This alignment does not administratively suit the profession, and podiatric surgeons may serve more effectively when aligned with surgeons of other medical disciplines. Lastly, while Army Re-serve surgeons receive a 90-day rotation exemption limiting their tour of duty in combat, Reserve podiatric surgeons are not eligible for this exemption. This creates challenges to recruiting the best podiatrists for military service, and is especially difficult for podia-trists serving in the Reserve component who are faced with the possibility of a long deployment with potentially adverse effects on their civilian practice. The committee therefore directs the Sec-retary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the mili-tary departments, to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1, 2019, on improvements that can be made to podiatry as a medical discipline within the Armed Services; how podiatry is aligned within each military branch; and what efforts are being made to provide additional clinical, com-mand, training, and leadership opportunities to podiatrists across the joint force. Podiatry in the Military The committee is concerned that surgically advanced military po-diatrists are not presented with the same advancement opportuni-ties as surgeons and doctors of other medical disciplines, and have historically had few opportunities for positions of command across the military medical enterprise. Podiatry, as a medical discipline in the Armed Forces, has evolved over the last several decades, in-cluding an additional 3-year surgical residency requirement for all military podiatrists. Podiatrists have increasingly deployed to com-bat zones overseas, serving in a variety of ways to meet the sur-gical needs of our warfighters. Moreover, podiatrists remain in the Medical Service Corps in the Army and Navy, and the Biomedical Science Corps in the Air Force. This alignment often limits ad-vancement and leadership opportunities in the civilian sector, and may put them at a disadvantage when compared to officers in the Medical Corps. Lastly, while surgeons of other disciplines receive a 90-day rotation exemption limiting their tour of duty in combat, podiatrists are not eligible for this exemption. This creates chal-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

137 lenges to recruiting the best podiatrists for military service, and is especially difficult for podiatrists serving in the Reserve component who are faced with the possibility of a long deployment with poten-tially adverse effects on their civilian practice. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Secretaries of the military departments, to sub-mit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than April 1, 2019, on improvements that can be made to podiatry as a medical discipline within the Armed Services; how podiatry is aligned within each military branch; and what efforts are being made to provide additional clinical, command, training, and ad-vancement opportunities to podiatrists across the joint force. Study on CT Angiography and Fractional Flow Reserve Computed Tomography in the Military Health System The Committee is aware of the significant health and cost sav-ings advantages of new technology for non-invasive diagnosis of cardiac artery disease through cardiac CT angiography (CTA) and fractional flow reserve computed tomography (FFRct). This FDA approved diagnostic device coupled with use of CTA as an initial testing strategy is recognized as part of a preferred pathway of care by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. The committee directs the Director of the Defense Health Agency to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services no later than March 1, 2019, that reviews and assesses the clinical efficacy of this technology and how it may be incorporated throughout the Military Health System. Support for Global Health Security Agenda and Briefing on Joint Staff Recommendations The Committee is supportive of the Department of Defense con-tributions to biosecurity and the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). The DoD possesses unique capabilities that contribute to interagency efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks of infectious disease worldwide, as demonstrated by the response to Ebola in West Africa. As the Ebola response required in excess of $600 million in DoD funding, the Committee is supportive of ensuring that the DoD learns lessons that can be applied to future pandemic prevention and response efforts. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 31, 2018 on implementation of recommendations made by the Joint Staff in its 2016 analysis of Operation United Assistance. The briefing shall include, but not be limited to, the status of imple-mentation of the following recommendations: (A) Participate in or facilitate interagency meetings to syn-chronize the GHSA plans and activities. Support GHSA initiatives in partner countries. (B) Conduct a capability based assessment to identify gaps in DoD’s ability to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, both do-mestically and internationally. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

138 (C) Sustain, and expand if possible public health-related capacity building for the full range of infectious diseases with partner coun-tries as conditions allow. (D) Work with CDC and other stakeholders to develop a strategic plan for a global laboratory network and improved information sharing. (E) Identify and leverage opportunities to expand sampling pro-grams to enhance OCONUS disease surveillance and gain an im-proved understanding of disease prevalence in different geographic areas. (F) Support the continued development of USG strategic plans that increase the public health and bio-surveillance capacities of partner nations. Therapeutic Service Dog Training Program for Service Members The committee is aware that service dog training therapy can provide important therapeutic benefits to service members recov-ering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and other post-deployment mental health conditions. The com-mittee notes the important role played by non-governmental orga-nizations that have established robust programs in the training and handling of therapeutic service dogs, and further notes that the right mix of personnel with the appropriate backgrounds and certifications facilitates positive therapeutic experiences. The com-mittee believes these programs, whenever possible, should use data and research to continue to improve their effectiveness in assisting service members. The committee encourages the Secretary of De-fense to continue administering a therapeutic service dog-training program that delivers effective and positive therapeutic and emo-tional benefits to service members recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other post-deployment mental health condi-tions. TRICARE Managed Care Support Contractor Reporting The committee notes the TRICARE benefit underwent consider-able reform beginning January 1, 2018. The Department of Defense consolidated the TRICARE regions from three to two as part of the updated TRICARE management contract, and Congress directed that the TRICARE benefit be consolidated into two plans: a Healthcare Maintenance Plan and a Preferred Provider Plan. Both reforms took effect on January 1, 2018. The committee is aware of challenges for beneficiaries regarding timely appointments, refer-rals, provider network development, and other administrative proc-essing functions. The committee is concerned these challenges may be impacting beneficiary access to health care services. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representa-tives not later than March 1, 2019, on managed care support con-tractor compliance with performance metrics and standards relat-ing to appointments, referral processing, network development (to include the requirement to cover 85 percent of the beneficiaries with standard select coverage in Prime Service Areas with special emphasis on remote locations), and other administrative processing functions. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

139 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—TRICARE ANDOTHERHEALTHCAREBENEFITSSection 701—TRICARE Medicare Advantage Demonstration Program This section would authorize the Department of Defense to de-velop a Medicare Advantage demonstration program for TRICARE- eligible beneficiaries. Section 702—Pilot Program on Treatment of Members of the Armed Forces for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Related to Military Sexual Trauma This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of a pilot program that uses intensive outpatient pro-grams to treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from post- traumatic stress disorder resulting from military sexual trauma. Section 703—Pilot Program on Cryopreservation and Storage This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for not more than 1,000 Active Duty service mem-bers that provides the opportunity to cryopreserve and store their gametes prior to deployment to a combat zone. SUBTITLEB—HEALTHCAREADMINISTRATIONSection 711—Transition of Administration by Defense Health Agency of Military Medical Treatment Facilities This section would amend section 1073 of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Department of Defense to transition the ad-ministration of military treatment facilities from the respective Secretary of the military departments to the Director of the De-fense Health Agency not later than September 30, 2020. This sec-tion would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from closing or limiting services in any military medical treatment facility until a transition certification process is completed. Section 712—Sharing Information with State Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs This section would amend section 1074g of title 10, United States Code, by requiring the Department of Defense to establish a pre-scription drug monitoring program and share information with State prescription drug monitoring programs. Section 713—Improvement to Notification to Congress of Hospitalization of Combat-Wounded Members of the Armed Forces This section would amend section 1074l(a) of title 10, United States Code, by including notification to Congress of hospitalization of combat-wounded members of the Armed Forces to every military medical treatment facility. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

140 Section 714—Improvements to Trauma Center Partnerships This section would amend section 708 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), by authorizing the use of civilian trauma centers in the training of military health professionals in trauma-related specialties. Section 715—Wounded Warrior Policy Review This section would require the Secretary of Defense to update and review policy and procedures related to wounded warrior care and include a report on the review not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 716—Joint Force Medical Capabilities Development and Standardization This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a process to establish joint medical capabilities that meet operational planning requirements and provide a report on this process to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than March 1, 2019. SUBTITLEC—REPORTS ANDOTHERMATTERSSection 721—Establishment of Triservice Dental Research Program This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to estab-lish the Triservice Dental Research Program at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Section 722—Increasing the Number of Appointed Directors of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine This section would increase the number of appointed directors of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine. Section 723—Extension of Authority for Joint Department of De-fense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Dem-onstration Fund This section would authorize the extension of the Joint Depart-ment of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund established by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 84) and most recently amended by section 719 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). Section 724—Inclusion of Gambling Disorder in Health Assess-ments and Related Research Efforts of the Department of De-fense This section would require the Department of Defense to include questions concerning gambling disorders in annual periodic health assessments and the Health-Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel.

141 Section 725—Medical Simulation Technology and Live Tissue Training within the Department of Defense This section would require the Department of Defense to use medical simulation technology before the use of live tissue training to train medical professionals and combat medics except for when the use of live tissue training is determined necessary by the med-ical chain of command. This section would also require a briefing on the use and benefit of medical simulation technology and live tissue training within the Department of Defense. Section 726—Limitation on Changes to Federal Emergency Services Certification Levels of the Air Force This section limits any changes to Federal Emergency Services certification levels in the Air Force. Section 727—Strategic Medical Research Plan This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consulta-tion with the Secretaries of the military departments, to submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive strategic medical research plan that is inclusive of the Congressional Di-rected Medical Research Plan and the Defense Health Program. Section 728—Independent Evaluation of Mental Health Care This section would require an independent assessment of mental health care services in the Military Health System by an inde-pendent federally funded research and development center. Section 729—Study on Reimbursement Rates for Mental Health Care Providers under TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Select in the East and West Regions of the TRICARE Program This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study assessing the impacts of using established reimbursement rates to reimburse covered mental health care providers on the availability of such providers. TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Assessment of Acquisition Workforce The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the House Armed Services Committees no later than December 1, 2018 a report to assess the current effectiveness of Defense Acquisition University’s mission to adequately train the Department of De-fenses’ acquisition workforce and other personnel involved in the acquisition process. This report shall include an assessment of De-fense Acquisition University’s ability to adequately train students to write acquisition requirements (including scope of work) so that requirements are developed in such a way as to meet the needs of the Department, as well as its ability to adequately train students on the appropriate use of transactions other than contracts, cooper-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

142 ative agreements, and grants, also known as other transaction au-thority, and additional items at the Secretary’s discretion. Briefing on Athletic Footwear for New Recruits The committee notes the health and safety of newly recruited servicemembers is of utmost importance. The committee notes ath-letic footwear furnished to new recruits upon entering the military should be consistently issued in a manner that accounts for each recruit’s individual physiological requirement in order to prevent lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. The committee directs the Department of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services, not later than November 1, 2018, on the Department’s effort to examine, measure, and fit new recruits with athletic shoes in an effort to reduce and prevent injury. The brief-ing will present the information separately by individual service as well as in aggregate. Comptroller General Report on the Issuance of Regulations in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement The committee notes that despite recent legislative reform to the acquisition system there has been a significant delay between stat-utory enactment and issuance of regulations in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). For example, a final rule on procurement of commercial items (issued in January 2018) amended the DFARS based upon requirements from as long ago as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub-lic Law 112–239). As a result, the acquisition and contracting com-munities within and outside the Federal Government are unable to take full advantage of recent reforms and improvements to acquisi-tion and contracting procedures. The committee is concerned that the momentum generated by congressional acquisition reform ini-tiatives has been lost as a result of delayed, and potentially incom-plete, revision of regulations, and seeks to identify and remedy the causes of such delays. According to the Department of Defense’s op-erating guidance for the DFARS, the standard timeline for issuance of a final rule is one year, including multiple layers of review with-in and outside the Department as well as time for public comment. The committee seeks recommendations on how to reduce that timeline and ensure that previously enacted statutory provisions are not disregarded in regulation. The committee also encourages exploration of other ways to quickly implement enacted reforms such as through interim policy memoranda or other guidance, with-out the need for formal regulatory action. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the congressional defense com-mittees by March 1, 2019, on the issuance of regulations in the De-fense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement as required under statutory provisions enacted in past National Defense Au-thorization Acts. The report should describe the existing revision process and assess the status of statutory provisions enacted since fiscal year 2010. The report should assess the factors delaying revi-sion to the DFARS and provide recommendations for any changes that might accelerate such revisions. The committee intends for the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

143 Comptroller General to focus on acquisition policy-related statutory provisions enacted in past National Defense Authorization Acts. The committee further directs the Comptroller General to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by De-cember 1, 2018, on preliminary findings. Contract Incentives for Superior Supplier Performance The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acqui-sition and Sustainment to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2018, on the Department of Defense’s Superior Supplier Incentive Program. This program is designed to recognize and reward contractors who dem-onstrate superior performance by focusing on cost, schedule, per-formance, quality, and responsiveness. The briefing should include discussion of the feasibility of providing contract incentives, such as more favorable contract terms and conditions, which had been con-sidered in relation to the Department of the Navy’s Superior Sup-plier Incentive Program that preceded the Department of Defense’s program. Core Logistics Capability The committee notes that section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Department of Defense to maintain a core logis-tics capability that is Government-owned and Government-operated (including Government personnel and Government-owned and Gov-ernment-operated equipment and facilities) to ensure a ready and controlled source of technical competence and resources necessary to ensure effective and timely response to a mobilization, national defense contingency situations, and other emergency requirements. The committee further notes that recent National Defense Author-ization Acts have made important changes to commercial item stat-utes, and that elsewhere in this Act the committee recommends further changes to the statutes governing commercial items. In all cases, the committee expects the Department to implement any statutory changes in a manner consistent with the mandate in sec-tion 2464 of title 10, United States Code, to maintain core logistics capabilities. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acqui-sition and Sustainment to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than February 1, 2019, on the Depart-ment’s implementation of changes to commercial item statutes en-acted in National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2016 through 2019, and how such changes may affect core logistics capa-bility in the future. Data Rights Impact to Sustainment The committee is concerned about access to appropriate data rights with regard to long-term sustainment of weapon systems, es-pecially for weapon systems transitioning to organic depot sustainment. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acqui-sition and Sustainment to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services by September 30, 2018, on the process VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

144 and status of obtaining appropriate data rights for long-term sustainment of weapon systems transitioning to organic depots. Domestic Samarium Cobalt Magnet Manufacturing The committee is aware of the Department of Defense’s contin-ued need for a reliable rare earth magnet manufacturing industrial base to provide key components in many weapon systems. The com-mittee is concerned that a recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Japan may result in the outsourcing of all remaining rare earth magnet manufacturing capability in the United States to foreign manufacturers. There is currently one U.S.-owned and -operated rare earth magnet manufacturing facility in the United States, which produces samarium cobalt magnets. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take the appropriate steps to en-sure that the United States is not completely without a commer-cial-scale rare earth magnet manufacturing facility. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2018, on the risks to the current domestic rare earth supply chain, including domestic samarium cobalt magnet makers, as a re-sult of the MOU with Japan. The briefing should also describe the Department’s strategy for preserving the long-term viability of the U.S. rare earth magnet industrial base. Ensuring Availability of Beryllium The committee notes that beryllium is the only material des-ignated by the Department of Defense’s Strategic Materials Protec-tion Board as a critical material. The committee notes there is a complete, vertically integrated supply chain in the United States for beryllium metal and other beryllium products that are used in major defense systems including the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter and nuclear weapon systems. This supply chain has historically been supported by the Department of Defense through the Defense Pro-duction Act and other authorities as required in order to maintain access to this critical, strategic material. The committee is interested in the Department’s efforts to help the U.S. defense industrial base sustain a secure, viable, and af-fordable domestic supply of beryllium. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2018, on the Department’s efforts to maintain the availability of beryllium for defense needs. The brief-ing should address the following: (1) what steps the Department is taking to ensure a stable and affordable domestic supply chain for beryllium; (2) whether the Department intends to provide any guidance re-garding individual programs using beryllium feedstock from the Russian Federation and metal production from the Republic of Kazakhstan; (3) the Department’s coordination with the National Nuclear Se-curity Administration to maintain the availability of beryllium for nuclear modernization requirements; VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

145 (4) the Department’s efforts to work with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure that regulatory burdens do not jeopardize the domestic beryllium supply chain; and (5) the potential opportunities for the Department’s guidance to its component agencies and military services to ensure a whole-of- Department approach to beryllium supply. Final Activities of and Archiving of Records for Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations The committee notes that the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations has continued to provide analysis to the relevant congressional committees and the Depart-ment of Defense to support statutory and regulatory implementa-tion of recommendations contained in volume 1 of its final report. The committee expects the Advisory Panel to provide additional recommendations to Congress and the Executive Branch in vol-umes 2 and 3 of the final report. The Advisory Panel, pursuant to section 883 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), which amended section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), will remain in existence for 180 days following deliv-ery of volume 3 of the final report in January 2019. During this final 6-month period, the Advisory Panel should continue to provide any necessary analysis and clarification of recommendations con-tained in the final report to Congress and the Executive Branch to support and facilitate statutory and regulatory implementation of such recommendations. The committee expects that the Department of Defense’s acquisi-tion reform efforts will not cease upon the termination of the Advi-sory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations. In addition, the Department of Defense’s implementation of recent legislative reforms as well as the Advisory Panel’s recommenda-tions on regulations will require continued research and analysis by the Department. The committee notes that section 809 of Public Law 114–92 established the National Defense University as one of the sponsors of the Advisory Panel. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense that upon termi-nation of the Advisory Panel, the Advisory Panel’s records shall be maintained by the Eisenhower School at the National Defense Uni-versity by no later than August 1, 2019. Installation of Command, Control, Communication and Computer Systems The committee remains concerned that the Navy is using lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) contracting procedures inappro-priately, particularly when acquiring complex systems, including command and control systems or services for the installation of command and control systems on ships. The committee notes that the Navy faces a significant backlog of maintenance and repair on ships and this backlog includes upgrades of command and control systems. The capacity of the Navy to reduce the backlog of needed repairs remains of concern to the committee. Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee not later than March 1,

146 2019, on the Navy’s acquisition plan for command and control sys-tems and the installation of these systems aboard Navy vessels. The briefing shall include an overview on how the Navy plans to reduce the backlog of needed command and control system up-grades, as well as the physical installation of these systems on Navy vessels. The briefing shall include the Navy’s plan for acquir-ing adequate contracting capacity for the performance of the re-quired work, the plan to incentivize contractors to perform the work quickly, and the total amount of work programmed for the next five years by class of ship. Mandatory Arbitration Briefing The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2019, on steps the Department has taken to ensure com-pliance with the provisions of Subpart 222.74 of the Defense Fed-eral Acquisition Regulation Supplement concerning restrictions on the use of mandatory arbitration agreements. The briefing shall in-clude steps taken to ensure that the Department does not fund con-tracts in excess of $1 million with contractors that require as a con-dition of employment that employees enter an agreement to resolve certain claims and torts through arbitration. The briefing shall also include steps taken to ensure that contractors have certified that covered subcontractors, as defined in the clause at 252.222–7006 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, have been required to agree not to enter into such agreements. The briefing shall also include the extent to which the Secretary of Defense has waived the requirements of this subpart. The briefing shall also in-clude potential ways for Department of Defense to determine the prevalence of mandatory arbitration by Department of Defense con-tractors compared to contractors that do not do business with De-partment of Defense. Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program The committee supports and recognizes the importance of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Ex-tension Partnership program. The committee understands that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program provides assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies to reduce costs, increase productivity, improve management, enhance supply chains, and adapt to new market and supply chain opportunities. In addition, the committee believes that additional resourcing and support for the program would likely provide these services to a larger number of manufacturers involved in Department of Defense programs. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2019, on the Department of Defense plans for future cooperation with the Manu-facturing Extension Partnership program, including collaborative efforts between the Department and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. The briefing should also include a review of potential opportunities for expanding Department support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program in an effort to pro-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

147 vide assistance to manufacturing elements of the defense industrial base. National Defense Stockpile The committee notes the importance of the National Defense Stockpile and of the preservation of strategic and critical materials for national defense. The committee is concerned about the current risks and long-term sustainability of the National Defense Stock-pile. According to the Department of Defense, there are significant unsatisfied stockpile requirements, and, under the current pro-gram-financing model, the Transaction Fund will be unsustainable by 2024. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2018, on the National Defense Stockpile. The briefing should address the following: (1) the Department’s plan to address the current unmitigated risks; (2) how the Department will make the Transaction Fund sustain-able; (3) an overview of the Department’s stockpile management to in-clude acquisition of materials, storage, security, and maintenance; (4) the Department’s ability to upgrade, refine, and process the material for storage, disposition, or use; and (5) any vulnerabilities to the National Defense Stockpile supply chain and the Department’s risk mitigation efforts. Navy Build-to-Print Cost Savings The committee supports expanding competition in Navy acquisi-tion, including appropriate use of ‘‘build-to-print’’ competitions where the Navy holds sufficient rights to the design of military equipment components to compete the production of them with multiple sources. The committee is aware of Navy efforts to use such competitions to dramatically reduce the time and cost of con-tracting for selected items. The committee encourages the Navy to expand these efforts if they can be pursued in a way that works collaboratively with industry on obtaining the necessary technical data rights and intellectual property through early negotiations. One Hundred Percent Employee-Owned Contractors The committee is interested in understanding the merits of 100 percent employee-owned contractors and the potential benefits they bring to strengthening the defense industrial base. The committee seeks to further understand the benefits and cost implications of awarding contracts to employee-owned contractors for the Depart-ment of Defense; the retention rates of employee-owned contrac-tors; and any other benefits of this type of contractor. The committee will work with the Comptroller General of the United States to further study these types of contractors. Report on REE-Bearing Waste Recycling The committee continues to be concerned with our dependence on foreign sources for materials critical to our national defense. To VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

148 help mitigate this supply chain risk, the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act strongly encouraged the Department to recycle discarded items, such as spent fluorescent lamps, in order to ex-tract, reclaim and reuse critical materials and rare earth elements contained in such waste. This section also provided the Department broad authority to recover, acquire, recycle and manage the dis-posal and recyclable strategic and critical materials containing REE from other federal agencies. The committee is aware of recent advances in domestic recycling technology, providing clean and efficient means for reclaiming rare earth elements from a variety of domestic waste streams. At cur-rent recycling levels of fluorescent lamps alone, recoverable quan-tities of target rare earth elements such as Yttrium, deemed by the Department to be critical to the national defense, can wholly offset the total amount of imported Yttrium originating in China on an annual basis, and sold at or below current market price. Where feasible, such waste streams should not be destroyed or landfilled, but managed in accordance with our national defense needs. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2019, on the Department’s past and planned future use of new authorities granted to them to both recycle the Depart-ment’s applicable REE-bearing waste, and recover and exploit the REE-bearing waste of other federal agencies. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—STREAMLINING OFDEFENSEACQUISITIONSTATUTESANDREGULATIONSSection 800—Effective Dates; Coordination of Amendments This section would set the effective dates for the establishment of a new part V of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and the redesignation of the chapter and section numbers for title 10 subtitles B, C, and D in order to create numerical space for a new part V at the end of subtitle A. This restructuring would also en-able additional growth and potential future reorganization of title 10 statutes in other subject areas outside of the acquisition code. The committee expects that this restructuring effort would be sustained. The second phase of reorganization would be enacted by follow-on legislation that would direct the more detailed chapter by chapter transfer into the final revised, rationalized structure of title 10 not later than February 1, 2020. PARTI—CONSOLIDATION OFDEFENSEACQUISITIONSTATUTES INNEWPARTV OFSUBTITLEA OFTITLE10, UNITEDSTATESCODESection 801—Framework for New Part V of Subtitle A This section would establish the initial step in the first phase of a comprehensive reorganization and optimization of acquisition-re-lated statutes in title 10, United States Code. The committee recog-nizes that the structure for acquisition-related statutes in title 10 has become unwieldy and inadequate. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

149 This section would create a new part V at the end of subtitle A of title 10, thus logically organizing all acquisition-related statutes in one part in the Code. The committee expects that the actual shift of statutory language for the new part V would be established in a subsequent second phase of legislation, but not later than Feb-ruary 1, 2020. The committee notes that reorganizing defense acquisition stat-utes into a restructured, rationalized form would reflect more clear-ly the underlying organization of these statutes and provide a structure that is more intuitive and easier to navigate, as well as facilitate future growth within the Code’s structure. In addition, the proposed reorganization would provide an opportunity to re-store parallelism between the acquisition-related provisions of title 10 and the corresponding provisions of title 41, United States Code, that are applicable to procurement by non-defense agencies, which would benefit the entirety of the Federal contracting community. The committee expects that this restructuring effort will be sus-tained, and the second phase of reorganization will be enacted by follow-on legislation that will direct the more detailed chapter by chapter transfer into the final revised, rationalized structure of title 10 (to include the new part V of subtitle A) not later than Feb-ruary 1, 2020. PARTII—REDESIGNATION OFSECTIONS ANDCHAPTERS OFSUB-TITLESB, C, ANDD TOPROVIDEROOM FORNEWPARTV OFSUB-TITLEA Section 806—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitle D of Title 10, United States Code—Air Force This section would redesignate the chapter and section numbers for subtitle D of title 10, United States Code, in order to create nu-merical space for a new part V at the end of subtitle A. This re-structuring would also enable additional growth and potential fu-ture reorganization of title 10 statutes in other subject areas out-side of the acquisition code. The committee expects that this restructuring effort would be sustained. The second phase of reorganization would be enacted by follow-on legislation that would direct a more detailed chapter by chapter transfer into a final revised, rationalized structure of title 10 not later than February 1, 2020. Section 807—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitle C of Title 10, United States Code—Navy and Marine Corps This section would redesignate the chapter and section numbers for subtitle C of title 10, United States Code, in order to create nu-merical space for a new part V at the end of subtitle A. This re-structuring would also enable additional growth and potential fu-ture reorganization of title 10 statutes in other subject areas out-side of the acquisition code. The committee expects that this restructuring effort would be sustained. The second phase of reorganization would be enacted by follow-on legislation that would direct a more detailed chapter by chapter transfer into a final revised, rationalized structure of title 10 not later than February 1, 2020. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

150 Section 808—Redesignation of Sections and Chapters of Subtitle B of Title 10, United States Code—Army This section would redesignate the chapter and section numbers for subtitle B of title 10, United States Code, in order to create nu-merical space for a new part V at the end of subtitle A. This re-structuring would also enable additional growth and potential fu-ture reorganization of title 10 statutes in other subject areas out-side of the acquisition code. The committee expects that this restructuring effort would be sustained. The second phase of reorganization would be enacted by follow-on legislation that would direct a more detailed chapter by chapter transfer into a final revised, rationalized structure of title 10 not later than February 1, 2020. Section 809—Cross References to Redesignated Sections and Chapters This section would establish the cross-references guidance for new redesignated sections and chapters of title 10, United States Code. The committee expects that this restructuring effort would be sustained. The second phase of reorganization would be enacted by follow-on legislation that would direct a more detailed chapter by chapter transfer into a final revised, rationalized structure of title 10 not later than February 1, 2020. PARTIII—REPEALS OFCERTAINPROVISIONS OFDEFENSEACQUISITIONLAWSection 811—Amendment to and Repeal of Statutory Requirements for Certain Positions or Offices in the Department of Defense This section would amend or repeal a number of statutory re-quirements for certain Department of Defense positions or offices established or required by law, and would establish a sunset for one statutory designation. The committee notes that these repeals do not constitute an as-sessment of the offices’ or positions’ respective missions or roles in the acquisition process, but rather are an effort to remove need-lessly prescriptive and obsolete requirements from the United States Code. Codifying the existence and structure of certain offices may unnecessarily restrict the Secretary of Defense’s ability to modify the Department’s organizational structure to improve effi-ciency and effectiveness in a way that is consistent with the re-forms to the organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as required by section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). Repeal of these statutory requirements would not directly abolish the affected posi-tions, but would allow the Secretary to restructure those positions should such action be warranted. Removing statutory mandates would enhance the Secretary’s authority and ability to craft an agile acquisition organization.

3 presence in Europe, and it moves the EDI-request for the Army Pre-positioned Stock United Set to the base budget. With respect to the whole-of-society plans of the Chinese Com-munity Party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the bill di-rects the creation of a whole-of-government strategy to confront these plans; it improves security cooperation to counter the PRC’s rising influence in Africa, Southeast Asia, and other regions; and, it improves Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities by expanding joint training, foreign military sales, the use of security cooperation au-thorities, and senior-level military-to-military engagement initia-tives. H.R. 5515 also continues the committee’s efforts to reorganize the U.S. Government’s efforts with respect to malign foreign influ-ence operations and campaigns by directing the President to des-ignate an official on the staff of the National Security Council to coordinate a whole-of-government response to these operations and campaigns. Impacts on Military Preparedness The committee is particularly concerned by the state of military readiness. In 2017, nearly four times as many members of the mili-tary died in training accidents as were killed in combat. In all, 21 service members died in combat while 80 died as a result of non- combat, training-related accidents. This spring alone, 25 were killed in military aviation mishaps. In 2017, there were a total of 60 Class-A aviation mishaps across the services. These mishaps are not limited to military aviation. This past summer, the Navy lost 17 Sailors in separate collisions involving the USS John S. McCain and the USS Fitzgerald. H.R. 5515 makes it a top priority of the Department of Defense to increase training of the Joint Force to promote readiness. The funding will allow the Army to conduct 20 Combat Training Center rotations in fiscal year 2019, including 4 rotations for the Army National Guard, doubling the number of Brigade Combat Teams sent to the Center. It will authorize funding for the Army to hold two Security Force Assistance Brigade (SFAB) culminating training events a year, enhancing the Army’s combat capability and capac-ity. The funding in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fis-cal Year 2019 enables the Marine Corps to continue maximizing the capacity of their full-spectrum collective training exercises to help restore the capability of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. H.R. 5515 includes increased funding for equipment maintenance, spare parts, and training to rebuild readiness for ships, aircraft squadrons, and ground units. The proposal fully supports the President’s budget request of $2.8 billion for the procurement of spare airplane parts for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. And it also provides $21.8 bil-lion for equipment maintenance and $3.7 billion for spare parts; this represents an increase of $927.9 million over the Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus. H.R. 5515 also takes specific steps to restore and rebuild the readiness of the U.S. Navy. It directs the Navy to provide clear chains of command for operations, for building readiness, and for shipyard maintenance. It would limit the time a Navy vessel is for-ward deployed to more than 10 years, and it would increase the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676  

4 number of Navy vessels authorized for construction. It accelerates construction of the fourth Ford-class aircraft carrier, authorizes two additional Littoral Combat Ships, and supports two additional Vir-ginia-class attack submarines in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. Reforming the Department of Defense: Promoting Efficiency, Effec-tiveness, and Agility The FY16, FY17 and FY18 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs) included several reforms to the Department of Defense, including reforms to the Department’s acquisition processes and to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. H.R. 5515 focuses on the defense agencies and field activities (DAFAs) that are not part of a military service and do not report directly to the Secretary of Defense. It empowers the newly-created Department of Defense Chief Management Officer (CMO) to elimi-nate redundancy and cross enterprise activities (e.g., logistics, civil-ian resource management, real property management, and services contracting). It also requires the CMO to review and assess the function of each DAFA to validate its usefulness to the Joint Force or to recommend its elimination or transformation. HEARINGS Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 results from posture and budget-related hearings that began on February 14, 2018, and that were com-pleted on April 19, 2018. The full committee conducted 9 hearings and the 6 subcommittees conducted a total of 23 sessions during this time period. Additionally, over the past year, the committee conducted numerous policy and program oversight hearings, includ-ing hearings in support of its reform initiatives, to inform its devel-opment of the legislative proposals contained in this Act. COMMITTEE POSITION On May 9, 2018, the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 5515. The committee ordered the bill H.R. 5515, as amended, favorably reported to the House of Rep-resentatives by a recorded vote of 60–1, a quorum being present. EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a sub-stitute during the consideration of H.R. 5515. The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS The bill does not provide budget authority. This bill authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriations acts will provide budget authority. However, the committee strives to adhere to the rec-ommendations as issued by the Committee on the Budget as it re-lates to the jurisdiction of this committee. The bill addresses the following categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance; military personnel; work-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

5 ing capital funds; and military construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the Armed Forces Retirement Home, De-partment of Energy National Security Programs, the Naval Petro-leum Reserve, and the Maritime Administration. Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Depart-ment of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization of specific dollar amounts for military personnel. SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL The President requested discretionary budget authority of $708.1 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the committee for fis-cal year 2019. Of this amount, $617.1 billion was requested for ‘‘base’’ Department of Defense programs, $69.0 billion was re-quested for Overseas Contingency Operations requirements cov-ering the entire fiscal year, $21.8 billion was requested for Depart-ment of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nu-clear Facilities Safety Board, and $0.2 billion was requested for de-fense-related activities associated with the Maritime Administra-tion. The committee recommends an overall discretionary authoriza-tion of $708.1 billion in fiscal year 2019. The committee authoriza-tion is a $16.0 billion increase above the levels provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report summarizes the committee’s recommended discre-tionary authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2019 and compares these amounts to the President’s request. BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION The President’s total request for the national defense budget function (050) in fiscal year 2019 is $725.5 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to funding for pro-grams addressed in this bill, the total 050 request includes discre-tionary funding for national defense programs not in the commit-tee’s jurisdiction, discretionary funding for programs that do not re-quire additional authorization in fiscal year 2019, and mandatory programs. The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in division D of this report details changes to the budget request for all as-pects of the national defense budget function. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

6 DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE I—PROCUREMENT AIRCRAFTPROCUREMENT, ARMYItems of Special Interest Apache attack helicopters The committee understands the Army’s current aviation mod-ernization and equipping strategy that resulted from the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative currently resources the Army Na-tional Guard (ARNG) to retain 4 attack reconnaissance battalions for a total of 72 AH–64 Apache attack helicopters. The committee notes that these ARNG attack reconnaissance battalions would be equipped with 18 AH–64 attack helicopters as compared to the Ac-tive Component battalions that are equipped with 24 AH–64 attack helicopters. The committee is aware the ARNG is no longer solely the strategic reserve of the past, but also an operational force, and provides significant capability through rotational support to com-batant commanders. The committee believes that given the current global threat environment, reliance on ARNG capabilities is ex-pected to increase. Therefore, the committee believes that all 4 ARNG attack recon-naissance battalions should be equipped with 24 AH–64 attack hel-icopters, the same as Active Component battalions, in order to im-prove overall readiness and compatibility between the ARNG and Active Component. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to plan, program, and budget for 24 additional AH–64 attack helicopters to address ARNG requirements across the Future Years Defense Program. Light utility helicopter The budget request included $6.4 million for utility helicopter modifications to the UH–60 Black Hawk and the UH–72A Lakota helicopters, but contained no funding for UH–72A life-cycle sustainment and product improvements. The UH–72A Lakota heli-copter provides general aviation support for aviation units in the Active and Reserve Components. The committee supports the re-quirement to conduct mid-life sustainment and product improve-ment activities for the UH–72A, and includes funding to conduct the analysis, engineering, certification, and risk reduction activities necessary to update the UH–72A Life Cycle Support Plan. The committee also recognizes that the UH–72A was initially fielded without aircraft survivability equipment, which could potentially limit the Active Component and Army National Guard’s utilization of the UH–72A platform. As reflected in Division D of this Act, the committee recommends additional funding for the National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account (NGREA). The com-mittee understands that while no requirements have been formally identified for UH–72A Lakota ballistic armor or aircraft surviv-ability equipment by the National Guard Bureau, should a require-ment be put forth, the committee expects the Army National Guard to utilize NGREA funds. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

7 The committee recommends $16.4 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in utility helicopter modifications for UH–72A life-cycle sustainment and product improvements. Further, the committee di-rects the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February 8, 2019, on the Army’s long-term sustainment strategy for the UH–72A Lakota helicopter fleet. Report on efforts to reduce operational and maintenance costs for CH–47 The committee is aware the Army has recently validated a new specification for an improved thermal-acoustic blanket for CH–47 helicopters, which does not appear to be reflected in the logistics and material databases and support system. By greatly improving capabilities over current blankets, including dry/wet weight, air permeability, thermal and acoustic insulation, and durability the Army has developed a cost-effective way to significantly reduce operational and maintenance costs for the heavy lift fleet. The com-mittee commends the Army for this effort, and directs the Sec-retary of the Army to provide a briefing to the Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and Senate no later than September 28, 2018 detailing plans to outfit all current and future CH–47s with this enhanced capability and the status of the material and logistics supply chain’s incorporation of this new spec-ification. The briefing should include a schedule for fielding blan-kets for the current fleet and the status of inserting the new speci-fication into CH–47 block II production. Unmanned aerial system units for Army National Guard The committee understands the Army’s current fielding plan for MQ–1C Gray Eagle units includes Active Duty combat aviation bri-gades and intelligence units, and that at present no systems are planned for fielding to the Army National Guard. However, the committee notes that there are many missions involving military support to civilian authorities for which the MQ–1C Gray Eagle could contribute, including wildfire response, search and rescue, border security, counter-narcotics, and communications support during emergencies. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on the potential utility, feasi-bility, and cost of establishing MQ–1C Gray Eagle units in the Army National Guard. The briefing shall include, at a minimum, a detailed analysis of the resources needed to create a minimum of two Gray Eagle companies in the Army National Guard, and an analysis of how such units could provide support to civilian au-thorities for domestic emergencies. MISSILEPROCUREMENT, ARMYItems of Special Interest Stinger missile modernization program The committee supports the Army’s accelerated strategy to re-store capacity and capability in Short-Range Air Defense (SHORAD) teams, to include reconstituting man-portable air de-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

8 fense teams using Stinger missiles to counter current and emerging threats from fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, and un-manned air systems (UAS). However, the committee has significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the Army’s Stinger missile in-ventory, as well as the resiliency of the associated industrial base that produces key components, including those required for the Stinger missile seeker. The committee recognizes the requirement for Stinger missiles will likely increase as a result of increased demand for SHORAD capability. The Army’s current acquisition strategy does not include any new production of Stinger missiles, and instead implements a service life extension program (SLEP) for existing Stinger missiles. The committee notes that the last new Stinger missile was pro-duced in 2001, and that missiles expire annually due to attrition and decay. While the Stinger SLEP program does extend the mis-sile life by 10 years and improves counter-UAS capability by add-ing a proximity fuze, the current SLEP program will not mitigate the decline in Stinger missile inventory. Further, the Stinger SLEP program does not address the capability of the Stinger guidance section, electronics or seeker. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on the Stinger Modernization Program. The briefing should address the Army’s strategy to mitigate the decline of the Stinger missile inventory, to include required funding, maintenance of the Stinger industrial base, and modernization of the Stinger program in the out-years. PROCUREMENT OFWEAPONS ANDTRACKEDCOMBATVEHICLES, ARMYItems of Special Interest Armored brigade combat team modernization In the committee report accompanying the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (H. Rept. 115–200), the com-mittee expressed concerns about the stability of armored brigade combat team (ABCT) modernization funding in fiscal year 2018 and beyond, noting that the Army was currently modernizing one ABCT every 2 years at best. Furthermore, in H. Rept. 115–200 the committee encouraged the Army to fully modernize at least one ABCT per year, and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) authorized the additional funding necessary to modernize one complete ABCT. The com-mittee is encouraged by the Army’s increased investment for ABCT modernization in the budget request. Given this increased investment for ABCT modernization, the committee believes the Army should examine the cost benefits of using multiyear procurement contracts for combat vehicle plat-forms comprising ABCTs. However, the committee is also aware the Army has concerns over the loss of fiscal flexibility that occurs when it commits to a multiyear contract. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on the results of a cost-benefit analysis com-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

9 paring a traditional 5-year multiyear contract for ABCT platforms with an alternative 3-year multiyear contract with 2 successive sin-gle-year options. In addition, the committee is concerned that the Army’s current nomenclature for a critical part of the ABCT, the M1 Abrams tank, has become so complicated that it fails to communicate the impor-tance of the Army’s planned upgrades for the tank. Specifically, the committee is concerned that Army’s use of ‘‘M1A1 situational awareness,’’ ‘‘M1A2 system enhancement program version 3,’’ and ‘‘M1A2 system enhancement program version 4’’ to refer to Army upgrade programs for the M1 Abrams tank fails to clearly and con-cisely convey the significant capability upgrades resident in these efforts. The committee encourages the Army to change, as soon as possible, to clearer M1 Abrams upgrade program descriptions such as the ‘‘M1A3’’ and ‘‘M1A4’’ to more efficiently describe these pro-grams. The committee believes that such a change does not require any additional testing or funding. M240 medium machine gun modernization The committee is concerned the Army may be assuming too much risk in the small arms industrial base with respect to the family of M240 medium machine guns. Current funding profiles could lead to a potential production line shutdown. The shutdown of existing production lines would create significant operational im-pacts if requirements increase. The committee notes that the budg-et 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 on Armed Services of the House of Rep-resentatives 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 in-ventory either with newer M240 models or an entirely new system; (3) how the Army will address increased requirements caused by increases 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 interaction and communication with the origi-nal equipment manufacturer regarding capacity challenges and minimum sustaining production rates. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide an advisability and feasibility study to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services by September 28, 2018, on transitioning the existing fleet of M240B medium machine guns to the lighter- weight M240L configuration. This assessment shall include the es-timated costs associated with this transition and using current in-ventories of M240Bs. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

10 M3E1 Carl Gustaf weapon system The committee understands the M3E1 Carl Gustaf is the Army’s current platform for addressing the Army’s multi-role anti-armor anti-personnel weapon system requirement. The committee notes that the Army is implementing a directed requirement signed in January 2017 to expand the fielding of lightweight Carl Gustaf sys-tems to infantry and scout platoons in its infantry brigade combat teams and Stryker brigade combat teams. The committee notes, however, that the Army does not have plans or funding for a precision-guided round for the Carl Gustaf that will provide pinpoint, multitarget engagement capability at substantially extended ranges. The committee is aware of an emerging U.S. Special Operations Command requirement for a Guided Carl Gustaf Munition and encourages the Army to accel-erate development and production of a precision-guided round for the Carl Gustaf weapon system. Paladin Integrated Management The base budget request included $351.8 million for 30 M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) self-propelled howitzers. The M109A7 PIM program modernizes the legacy M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzer and M992A2 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle. The committee has worked closely with the Army to stabilize pro-duction for combat vehicle programs and armored brigade combat team modernization in order to maintain overmatch against near- peer and peer strategic competitors. As such, the committee is con-cerned that the Army’s budget request for the Paladin Integrated Management program does not adequately fund the current pro-duction contract. The committee notes that the Army has decreased planned PIM funding in fiscal year 2019 by approximately $237.0 million and that this funding decrease has resulted in a loss of 24 vehicle sets below the original 60 sets authorized under the con-tract. Furthermore, the committee understands the Army plans to increase production back to 60 sets per year beginning in fiscal year 2020. The committee believes this variance from planned and contracted funding amounts could cause significant disruptions to the PIM supply chain. The committee encourages the Army to maintain funding for PIM consistent with the 60 vehicles sets per year included in its current production contract. Therefore, the committee recommends $426.8 million, an in-crease of $75.0 million, to increase production for the M109A7 PIM program. Stryker upgrades The budget request contained $21.9 million for the procurement of three conversions of Stryker flat-bottom hull vehicles to the Dou-ble V–Hull (DVH) configuration with Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 1 upgrades resulting in a Stryker DVHA1 vehicle to be field-ed in Stryker brigade combat teams (SBCTs). The budget request also contained $287.5 million for Stryker vehicle modifications to resolve reliability, lethality, safety, operational, and performance degradation issues in Stryker vehicles. The committee understands the Stryker DVHA1 ECP addresses mobility and electrical power degradation issues resulting from VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

11 over 10 years supporting overseas contingency combat operations, as well as other improvements in network capability intended to provide the platform for future evolution of the fleet. The com-mittee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army just recently com-pleted an assessment of Stryker program priorities and directed that all six remaining SBCTs convert to the Stryker DVHA1 con-figuration. The committee supports this directed requirement, and believes the conversion would provide SBCTs with a more surviv-able vehicle, as well as regain the mobility and automotive per-formance lost due to the additional weight of the existing surviv-ability upgrades. To facilitate and support this effort in fiscal year 2019, the committee notes the Army has requested realignment of $149.3 million from the Stryker modification budget request, and also has identified new unfunded requirements for Stryker up-grades. The committee recommends an additional $188.8 million to accel-erate Stryker DVHA1 upgrades for SBCTs. The committee also rec-ommends the realignment of $149.3 million from the Stryker modi-fication budget request for Stryker DVHA1 upgrades. The com-mittee recommends a total of $360.0 million, a total increase of $337.3 million, for Stryker DVHA1 upgrades. PROCUREMENT OFAMMUNITION, ARMYItems of Special Interest M58 MICLIC The committee has continuing interest in the Department of De-fense’s plans to modify and upgrade the M58 Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC). This antiquated system has been employed by the United States Marine Corps and U.S. Army since the Vietnam- era. Since the beginning of the Global War on Terrorism, enemy mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been used to counter U.S. ground mobility assets. The past 17 years of conflict, coupled with recent trends indicate that these types of defensive tactics and techniques will be used in future engagements. While the enemy continues to adapt, the M58 MICLIC costs $83.6K per system and has not seen any significant upgrade in capability since its introduction. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1, 2019, on the Army’s plan for upgrading or replacing the M58 MICLIC. The briefing should include: (1) A description of current MICLIC employment statistics and mission requirements (2) An overview of a plan and timeline to upgrade the current system or field a newer variant (3) The costs associated with the research, development, test, and evaluation of a new system (4) Any employment or effectiveness shortfalls with the current M58 system. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

12 OTHERPROCUREMENT, ARMYItems of Special Interest CREW electronic counter-measure systems The budget request contained $42.7 million for the procurement of counter radio controlled improvised explosive devices (RCIED) electronics warfare (CREW) family of electronic counter measure (ECM) systems to protect dismounted soldiers, fixed-sites, and tac-tical and combat vehicles. The committee supports this program and notes that the United States Marine Corps and United States Special Operations Command are currently procuring the same family of systems. The committee is aware that the Army has two Program Executive Offices (PEOs) responsible for developing and procuring ground-based mounted and dismounted CREW and ECM systems. The committee notes that PEO Ammunition procures these systems specifically for Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units and that PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare & Sen-sors (IEW&S) for all other Army organizational units. The com-mittee needs to be assured that these PEOs are coordinating effec-tively on materiel solutions and are engaged in mutually sup-porting activities regarding CREW ECM systems. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by August 30, 2018, on the Army’s efforts to coordinate and synchronize the re-quirements process, rapid acquisition efforts, and programs of record of PEO IEW&S and PEO Ammunition related to CREW ECM systems. Enhanced rapid airfield construction capability The budget request included $0.9 million for enhanced rapid air-field construction capability (ERACC) equipment. The committee understands ERACC equipment provides the joint commander with the capability enhancement to rapidly construct new airfields and runways, and to upgrade existing facilities to meet joint task force requests. The committee notes this request specifically provides for the procurement, installation, and fielding of equipment in support of ERACC Type II mission requirements. The committee understands ERACC Type II mission equipment consists of a grade control system that includes a Global Posi-tioning System (GPS) and laser leveling system that is installed on a dozer, grader, scraper and Deployable Universal Combat Earth-mover. The committee notes the laser leveling systems allow for precision survey planning with three-dimensional software. The committee understands this system would significantly reduce operational time required for heavy construction missions, and re-sult in fewer machines required to complete missions, as well as fuel savings. The committee believes there are emerging require-ments for additional ERACC Type II capability. The committee recommends $8.4 million, an increase of $7.5 mil-lion, to accelerate the competitive modernization of ERACC equip-ment. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

151 Section 812—Repeal of Certain Defense Acquisition Laws This section would repeal a number of outdated provisions of law related to defense acquisition, including sections of title 10, United States Code, and provisions that appear in the United States Code as legislative ‘‘note’’ sections under various provisions of title 10. These out-of-date provisions either required the Department of De-fense to issue regulations, have now expired by their own terms, or are otherwise obsolete. The committee notes that, with respect to repeal of a statutory requirement for issuance of a regulation, it is not expressing a view on the merits of the policies covered by the regulation. Rather, in repealing the statutory requirement for a regulation, this section would allow the Secretary of Defense to revise the regulation as circumstances warrant. Repealing the statutory requirement would allow the Secretary to revise or rescind the regulation, but would not prescribe it. The decision to retain, or not retain, the regulation would remain with the Secretary. Section 813—Repeal of Certain Department of Defense Reporting Requirements This section would repeal certain Department of Defense recur-ring reporting requirements. The committee notes that excessive reporting requirements can impose costs on the Department of De-fense that outweigh the intended benefits of each individual report, and can potentially impede the Department’s ability to effectively direct resources to core objectives. In the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), Congress initially directed a large group of recurring reporting requirements to sunset on December 31, 2021. This section continues to advance this streamlining effort. SUBTITLEB—AMENDMENTS TOGENERALCONTRACTINGAUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES, ANDLIMITATIONSSection 821—Contract Goal for the AbilityOne Program This section would amend section 2323a of title 10, United States Code, to create a contract goal for the AbilityOne program of 1.5 percent. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the U.S. AbilityOne Commission on progress made toward achieving said contract goal. The committee intends to establish greater transparency for this program’s execution. Section 822—Increased Micro-Purchase Threshold Applicable to Department of Defense Procurements This section would amend section 2338 of title 10, United States Code, by raising the micro-purchase threshold for the Department of Defense from $5,000 to $10,000. Section 823—Preference for Offerors Employing Veterans This section would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new section that would authorize the head of an agency, in awarding a contract for the procurement of goods and VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676  

152 services for the Department of Defense, to establish a preference for offerors that employ veterans on a full-time basis, with criteria for use of such preference determined by the Secretary of Defense. Prior to establishing such preference, the Secretary of Defense would be required to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services on the process for assessing and verifying offeror compliance with regulations relating to equal opportunity for vet-eran’s requirements, and an implementation plan that includes penalties for an offeror that willfully and intentionally misrepre-sents the veteran status of employees. The committee notes the importance of ensuring and expanding economic opportunity for veterans, and the role of the Department in this endeavor. The committee further notes that the Department uses existing programs that maximize contracting opportunities for veteran-owned businesses and believes procurement policy should also encourage the employment of veterans through development of a preference that rewards the employment of veterans by compa-nies. The committee also notes the importance of establishing effec-tive compliance mechanisms as part of any such preference to en-sure that the service of veterans is not abused as a result of willful misrepresentation of their status by offerors. Section 824—Revision of Requirement to Submit Information on Services Contracts to Congress This section would amend section 2329(b) of title 10, United States Code, to change from October 1, 2022, to October 1, 2020, the effective date for the Secretary of Defense’s submission to Con-gress of information on services contracts that clearly and sepa-rately identifies the amount requested for each category of services to be procured for each Defense Agency, Department of Defense Field Activity, command, or military installation. This section would also add the requirement that such information should be in-cluded in the Future Years Defense Program submitted to Con-gress under section 221 of this title. The committee notes the Department of Defense’s recent decision to proceed with an initiative to budget services acquisitions over the course of the full Future Years Defense Program and to develop an implementation plan that leverages existing tools that can be employed to improve planning for acquisition of services. The com-mittee notes that the Department’s approach harmonizes well with the committee’s reform efforts enacted in the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) con-cerning enterprise data standardization and transparency. The committee further notes that the Department’s decision obviates the need for, and expenditure on, the independent analysis on this matter performed by a federally funded research and development center or other organization that was included in the conference re-port (H. Rept. 115–404) accompanying the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2018, on the development of this implementation plan and mile-stones leading to implementation of this initiative not later than October 1, 2020. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

153 Section 825—Data Collection and Inventory for Services Contracts This section would amend section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, by changing the dollar threshold for data to be collected on each purchase of services by a military department or Defense Agency from $3.0 million to the simplified acquisition threshold. This section would also remove the specification of the four service acquisition portfolio groups to be included in such data collection. This section would also change the activities contained in an an-nual inventory prepared by the Secretary of Defense from those pursuant to staff augmentation contracts, to those pursuant to services contracts, and replace references to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. Section 826—Competition Requirements for Purchases from Federal Prison Industries This section would amend section 2410n of title 10, United States Code, by removing ‘‘for which Federal Prison Industries does not have a significant market share’’. This section would create a requirement for conducting market research before purchasing a product listed in the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) catalog. This section would require the Depart-ment of Defense to: (1) conduct market research to determine if the product is com-parable to products in the private sector and meets the Depart-ment’s needs (price, quality, or time of delivery) prior to purchasing a product from FPI. (2) use competitive procedures or purchase under a multiple award contract if the product is not comparable and does not meet the Department’s needs. Section 827—Requirement for a Fair and Reasonable Price for Technical Data Before Development or Production of Major Weapon Systems This section would provide the Department of Defense with addi-tional flexibility on negotiations for appropriate technical data. Section 828—Revisions in Authority Relating to Program Cost Tar-gets and Fielding Targets for Major Defense Acquisition Pro-grams This section would amend sections 2448a, 2366a, and 2366b of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretaries of the military departments, or, in instances where an alternate milestone decision authority for a program has been designated under section 2430(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense, to establish program cost, fielding, and performance goals in plan-ning major defense acquisition programs. This section would also allow for the delegation of these responsibilities beyond the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The committee notes that while section 825 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) amended section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, by changing the designation of the milestone decision authority for major de-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

154 fense acquisition programs to be, with some exceptions, the service acquisition executive of the military department that is managing the program, this change has not been reflected elsewhere in this title. As a result, certain statutory responsibilities remain with the Secretary of Defense when they should more appropriately be per-formed by the Secretaries of the military departments. This section addresses this discrepancy as it pertains to establishing program cost, fielding, and performance goals in planning major defense ac-quisition programs, as well as associated reporting to Congress that coincides with the granting of Milestone A and Milestone B approval. Section 829—Revision of Timeline for Use of the Rapid Fielding Pathway for Acquisition Programs This section would amend section 804(b)(2) of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to change part of the objective of an acquisition program under the rapid fielding pathway from completing fielding within 5 years, to completing low-rate initial production within 5 years. The committee notes that requiring completion of fielding within 5 years may unnecessarily limit the applicability of this pathway for incremental upgrade programs. Section 830—Clarification of Services Contracting Definitions This section would direct the Secretary of Defense, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to clarify the definitions of and relationships between terms related to services contracts, including the appropriate use of personal and nonper-sonal services contracts, and the responsibilities of individuals in the acquisition workforce with respect to such contracts. The committee notes that definitions for terms related to con-tracted services are found in statute, regulation, and elsewhere in the Department of Defense’s contracted services lexicon. The com-mittee expects the Department to clearly delineate in one place the definitions of and relationships between terms related to contracted services, including associated supervisory responsibilities. SUBTITLEC—PROVISIONSRELATING TOCOMMERCIALITEMSSection 831—Revision of Definition of Commercial Item for Purposes of Federal Acquisition Statutes This section would clarify the definition of commercial items. Specifically, it would clarify commercial items as commercial prod-ucts or commercial services. The committee notes the current definition of commercial items throughout the United States Code is inconsistent, with 40 dis-parate definitions of commercial items. Additionally, commercial item definitions do not appropriately take into account the dif-ferences between products and services. The separation of the defi-nition of commercial items into commercial products and commer-cial services would simplify and streamline procurement. Consist-ency in application of definitions would assist the acquisition work-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

155 force as well as businesses seeking to participate in the defense sector. Section 832—Definition of Subcontract This section would create a precise definition for ‘‘subcontract’’ in title 41, United States Code, and incorporates this revised defini-tion in title 10, United States Code. The committee notes there are multiple definitions of subcontract and establishing a single definition for a subcontract would provide clarification, simplicity, and consistency for defense procurement actions. Section 833—Limitation on Applicability to Department of Defense Commercial Contracts of Certain Provisions of Law and Certain Executive Orders and Regulations This section would update section 2375, section 2533a, and sec-tion 2533b of title 10, United States Code, with the clarified defini-tion of commercial products and commercial services. This section would also establish a new section 2375a to limit applicability of certain Executive orders and regulations. The committee expects that these revisions would remove current obstacles from commercial transactions between the Department of Defense and commercial suppliers, and improve access to the best commercial goods and services. Section 834—Modifications to Procurement Through Commercial E- Commerce Portals This section would amend section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to allow the Administrator of the General Services Administration to develop procedures for procurement through a commercial e-com-merce portal. The procedures must satisfy the requirements for competitive procedures outlined in title 41, United States Code. Ad-ditionally, this section would require these procedures to be sub-mitted to the congressional defense committees 30 days prior to im-plementation. This section would also amend titles 10 and 41, United States Code, by increasing the micro-purchase threshold for procurement through a commercial e-commerce portal from $10,000 to $25,000. The committee notes that Public Law 115–91 authorized the Of-fice of Management and Budget to develop a program managed by the General Services Administration to procure commercial prod-ucts through e-commerce portals. The committee expects the com-mercial e-commerce portals would simplify and streamline the de-fense acquisition process as well as provide better transparency. SUBTITLED—INDUSTRIALBASEMATTERSSection 841—Requirement That Certain Ship Components Be Manufactured in the National Technology and Industrial Base This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United States Code, and would require certain auxiliary ship components to be procured from a manufacturer in the national technology and in-dustrial base.

156 Section 842—Report on Domestic Sourcing of Specific Components for All Naval Vessels This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019, that provides a market survey and cost assessment associated with limiting competition to domestic sources for certain naval compo-nents. Section 843—Removal of National Interest Determination Requirements for Certain Entities This section would streamline the National Industrial Security Program by removing the regulatory requirements relating to Na-tional Interest Determinations (NIDs). It would build on section 1712 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), which required a review of whether cer-tain companies ‘‘should be exempted from one or more of the for-eign ownership, control, or influence [FOCI] requirements of the National Industrial Security Program.’’ This section would address NIDs as a particularly urgent problem within that set of FOCI re-quirements authorized for exemption. It would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to accelerate implementation of this policy for contracting entities that have already demonstrated a longstanding commitment to industrial security and have previously been ap-proved for access to proscribed information. The committee is concerned that, especially with regard to enti-ties from allied countries (United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth of Aus-tralia, and Canada) that comprise the national technology and in-dustrial base (NTIB), the NID process creates substantial burdens without meaningfully enhancing the government’s national security interests. It also causes the misallocation of scarce industrial secu-rity oversight resources. Under current practice, but not pursuant to any statutory mandate, NIDs are required for entities operating under a ‘‘special security agreement’’ (SSA) to access proscribed categories of classified information. The committee is aware that certain agencies can take between 6 and 10 months to process NID requests, even for SSA-mitigated companies from NTIB countries that have a longstanding history of industrial security performance in the United States and are critical players in our nation’s defense industrial base. These delays and associated burdens have re-stricted competition and innovation by excluding qualified and re-sponsible U.S.-based companies that operate under SSAs. Section 844—Pilot Program To Test Machine-Vision Technologies To Determine the Authenticity and Security of Microelectronic Parts in Weapon Systems This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the Defense Micro-electronics Activity, to establish a pilot program to test the feasi-bility and reliability of using machine-vision technologies to deter-mine the authenticity and security of microelectronics parts in weapon systems. The committee supports the Department of Defense’s comprehen-sive counterfeit material prevention strategy, which is a risk-based VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

157 approach that includes collaboration with industry to reduce coun-terfeit parts in the supply chain. The committee notes that since it first highlighted this issue in 2012, the Department has made significant improvements and standardized the processes for assur-ing acquisition of authentic and conforming material. However, re-maining ahead of emerging security threats in this area remains a challenge. The committee believes that utilization of innovative software ap-plications may provide opportunities to cost-effectively add capabili-ties and improve operations by addressing gaps from third-party providers, including receiving and inspection requirements for non- franchised parts. Specifically, the committee is aware of new technologies based on personalization and anti-counterfeiting software that, combined with optical and digital authentication methods, are effectively being used to meet high-security inventory demands in commercial industry. Such technologies include machine-vision technologies that have the ability to identify and authenticate objects without adding additional hardware to the object such as radio frequency identification chips, bar codes, quick response codes, or serial num-bers. These technologies provide identification of counterfeit goods by using authentication methods that are strongly resistant to rep-lication and tampering; can be applied to a variety of substrates such as plastic and metal; can be encoded and/or embedded onto substrates; and can be easily authenticated optically and digitally using decoder devices and applications on mobile devices. The com-mittee understands that such technologies may provide data ana-lytics capability as well. As a result, the committee believes a pilot program of the appropriate scope is the best way for the Depart-ment to evaluate and understand the potential of this new tech-nology. SUBTITLEE—SMALLBUSINESSMATTERSSection 851—Department of Defense Small Business Strategy This section would require the Department of Defense to develop and implement a small business strategy to better leverage small businesses as a means to enhance or support mission execution. This section specifies that such a strategy should include plans to integrate small businesses into a holistic view of industry; to re-align the Department’s small business programs with agency mis-sion under a unified management structure; and to clarify points of entry into the defense market. The committee expects that this unified strategy would create ex-panded small business engagement in the defense sector by in-creasing entry points for non-traditional and innovative companies. Section 852—Prompt Payments of Small Business Contractors This section would direct Federal agencies to establish a prompt payment goal of 15 days for small business prime contractors. It would also extend the accelerated payment objective to other-than small prime contractors that subcontract with small businesses, and encourage these prime contractors to also accelerate payments to their small business subcontractors. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

158 Section 853—Increased Participation in the Small Business Administration Microloan Program This section would amend section 636(m)(3)(C) of title 15, United States Code, by increasing the total limit on outstanding loans from $5.0 million to $6.0 million. This section would also amend section 636(m)(4)(E), which estab-lishes the ‘‘25/75 Rule.’’ Currently, the 25/75 Rule prohibits a microloan intermediary from using more than 25 percent of the technical assistance grants they receive from the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide pre-loan assistance to small busi-ness borrowers and third-party contracts. This section would amend the ratio from 25/75 to 50/50. This section would also require the Administrator of SBA to sub-mit a report to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and Entre-preneurship of the Senate, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, on why the program often has low par-ticipation rates among microlenders. The report shall gather a rep-resentative sample of eligible entities that participate in the pro-gram and those that do not, along with the reasons why entities do not partake, and offer recommendations on modifications that would increase participation. Finally, this section would require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, evaluating SBA oversight of the microloan program and the specific processes SBA uses to ensure compliance and track performance. Section 854—Amendments to Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program This section would authorize the use of Small Business Innova-tion Research or Small Business Technology Transfer program funding for administrative costs and expand phase flexibility dur-ing fiscal years 2018 through 2022. Section 855—Construction Contract Administration This section would amend section 644 of title 15, United States Code, to require Federal agencies to provide prospective construc-tion contractors with information about an agency’s policies and performance on the administration of change orders. Section 856—Broadband and Emerging Information Technology Coordinator This section would direct the Associate Administrator for the Of-fice of Investment and Innovation of the Small Business Adminis-tration to designate a senior employee as the ‘‘Broadband and Emerging Information Technology Coordinator.’’ The Coordinator would be responsible for connecting small businesses with financ-ing programs, and advising these businesses on how to acquire broadband and new information technology. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

159 This section would also direct a biennial report on activities be-ginning 2 years after the first designation of a Coordinator to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representa-tives. Section 857—Amendments to the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 This section would amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 682(b)) by increasing the Individual Leverage Limit from $150.0 million to $175.0 million and by increasing the total amount of capital and surplus that a financial institution and Federal savings association can invest in a small business invest-ment company from 5 percent to 15 percent. Section 858—Consolidated Budget Justification for the Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a budget justification for all activities conducted under the Small Business Innovation Research Program or Small Busi-ness Technology Transfer Program during the previous fiscal year. Section 859—Funding for Procurement Technical Assistance Program This section would amend section 2413(b) of title 10, United States Code, to provide Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) the resources necessary to conduct greater outreach and provide expanded support to small businesses. Division D of this Act would increase the topline budget for the Procurement Tech-nical Assistance Program to $50.0 million. This section would increase the funding caps for PTACs oper-ating on statewide, less than statewide, and eligible tribal loca-tions. This section would also adjust the percentage of Federal funding for PTACs to 75 percent from 65 percent, and would adjust the community contribution to 25 percent from 35 percent. Section 860—Exemption of Certain Contracts From the Periodic Inflation Adjustments to the Acquisition-Related Dollar Threshold This section would amend subparagraph (B) of section 1908(b)(2) of title 41, United States Code, to exempt certain contracts from the periodic inflation adjustments to the acquisition-related dollar threshold. SUBTITLEF—OTHERMATTERSSection 871—Additional Requirements for Negotiations for Noncommercial Computer Software This section would amend section 2322a of title 10, United States Code, and codify existing Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations on noncommercial software rights as well as mandate, to the max-imum extent practicable, that specially negotiated licenses be used for weapon systems noncommercial software. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

160 Section 872—Removal of Requirement for Risk and Sensitivity Analysis of Baseline Estimates in Selected Acquisition Reports This section would amend section 2432(c)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, by removing the requirement for risk and sensitivity analysis to be included with baseline estimates in selected acquisi-tion reports. The committee notes that risk and sensitivity analyses help in understanding the effects of changing variables on cost estimates. However, this language has been interpreted as requiring analysis of the sensitivity of the information in selected acquisition reports, resulting in unwarranted barriers to dissemination. Section 873—Prohibition on Acquisition of Sensitive Materials From Non-Allied Foreign Nations This section would amend section 2533b of title 10, United States Code, by prohibiting acquisition of certain sensitive materials from non-allied foreign nations. Section 874—Transfer or Possession of Defense Items for National Defense Purposes This section would amend sections 922 and 925 of title 18, United States Code, to allow joint production, integration, and cali-bration of military-grade hardware by licensed contractors, trans-fers of defense items to government customers, and export of au-thorized weapons to foreign governments. Section 875—Expedited Hiring Authority for Shortage Category Positions in the Acquisition Workforce This section would expand and extend direct-hire authority for acquisition professionals, which permits an agency to appoint can-didates to positions for which there is either a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need. Section 1413 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108– 136) authorized agency heads to determine, under regulations pre-scribed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), that certain Federal acquisition positions are shortage category positions in order to use direct-hire authorities. This section would extend the expiration date on those direct-hire authorities from September 30, 2017, to September 30, 2021. Additionally, this section would add the General Schedule Realty series (GS–1170) to the description of acquisition workforce found in section 1703 of title 41, United States Code, thereby including GS–1170 positions under the direct- hire authority extension established in this section. The committee notes that the government depends on skilled ac-quisition and program personnel to understand complex market dy-namics, develop clear requirements, negotiate in the best interest of the taxpayer, and hold contractors to high performance stand-ards. The expediency that direct-hire authority allows can be help-ful to an agency both in meeting critical initiatives that may re-quire particular expertise, such as to support information tech-nology modernization, cybersecurity efforts, and real property ac-quisition and disposal, as well as supporting the Federal Govern-

161 ment as it plans and executes on its agency and regulatory reform activities. Section 876—Extension of Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy This section would amend section 841(n) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) to change from December 31, 2019, to December 31, 2021, the sunset date for the provisions of the prohibition on providing funds to the enemy. Section 877—Repeal of Certain Determinations Required for Grants of Exceptions to Cost or Pricing Data Certification Re-quirements and Waivers of Cost Accounting Standards This section would repeal section 817(b)(1) of the Bob Stump Na-tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) regarding certain determinations required for grants of exceptions to cost or pricing data certification requirements and waivers of cost accounting standards. The committee notes that section 817(b) of Public Law 107–314 provides that a grant of an exception or waiver is appropriate only upon a determination that the property or services cannot reason-ably be obtained under the contract, subcontract, or modification, as the case may be, without the grant of the exception or waiver, in addition to two other determinations. The committee believes that this requirement could unnecessarily limit the granting of ex-ceptions or waivers in those instances in which, while cost and pricing data could be obtained, it would add little value and delay contract negotiations. For example, on a long-running production program, determination of a fair and reasonable price may be both possible and more efficiently performed without submission of cer-tified cost and pricing data, and therefore meet two of the three conditions for grant of an exception or waiver. However, because the contractor is willing and able to provide such data, the condi-tion at section 817(b)(1) would not be met and the exception or waiver could not be granted. The committee believes that increasing the flexibility with which exceptions or waivers can be granted will help streamline the ac-quisition process. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to promptly revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Sup-plement to reflect this repeal. Section 878—Reporting on Projects Performed through Trans-actions Other Than Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, and Grants This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than December 31 of each year through 2021, a report on the Department of Defense’s use of transactions other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants, known as other transaction authority, to perform projects. The report would include, for transactions that provide for payments in a total amount in excess of $5.0 million, information including the entities entering into the transaction, the amount of payment provided for, project goals and status, and key dates. The VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

162 report would also address mechanisms established to regulate use of this authority, including policies, guidance, and reporting re-quirements. The committee remains committed to providing the Department of Defense the needed flexibility to acquire advanced capabilities through streamlined and expedited processes. The committee recog-nizes that other transaction authority has been an effective tool for research and development, particularly for execution of science, technology, and prototyping programs. It provides needed flexibility in terms of adherence to select Federal acquisition regulations. While the benefits of this flexibility are clear, the committee be-lieves that it is still necessary to exercise effective oversight both to understand the ways in which the Department is properly leveraging the use of this authority and to prevent its abuse or misuse. The committee does not intend for this reporting require-ment to cause the Department to seek additional approval for use of other transaction authority, beyond the congressional notifica-tion requirement already established in statute. Rather, it is de-signed to facilitate regular and consistent updates on use of this authority across the Department in order to facilitate proper as-sessment of effectiveness and success. The $5.0 million threshold for reporting is consistent with the amount established in statute for inclusion of a clause that provides for the Comptroller General of the United States to examine the records of any party to an agreement entered into using other transaction authority. Section 879—Standardization of Formatting and Public Accessibility of Department of Defense Reports to Congress This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing not later than March 1, 2019, to the House Committee on Armed Services on a plan for implementing, not later than March 1, 2020, standardization of the formatting and public accessibility of unclassified Department of Defense reports required by Con-gress. The briefing shall address how the Department plans to en-sure that reports are created in an open format that can be re-trieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched by commonly used web search applications. An open format is one that is platform inde-pendent, machine readable, and made available to the public with-out restrictions that would impede reuse of that information. The briefing shall also address how the Department plans to provide a publicly accessible online repository of its unclassified reports to Congress required by provisions of law, including protocols for in-clusion of reports which, although unclassified, may not be appro-priate for public release in their entirety. The briefing shall ad-dress how the Department plans to include in the repository un-classified reports to Congress required by provisions of law issued since January 1, 2010. Section 880—Defending United States Government Communications This section would provide that, not later than January 1, 2021, no government agency may procure or obtain, nor extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, nor enter into a contract with an entity that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

163 with any covered entity. This section would define covered tele-communications equipment or services as that: (1) produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corpora-tion (or any subsidiary or affiliate of either company); (2) telecommunications services provided by an entity using such equipment; or (3) telecommunications equipment or services produced or pro-vided by an entity that the head of an agency believes to be owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the Government of the People’s Republic of China. This section would require the head of an agency to submit to the specified committees a plan to phase in the prohibition in this section, including with respect to the ‘‘white label’’ problem. This section would also permit the head of an agency to provide an additional 2-year waiver if he determines it is appropriate to allow an entity to terminate its use of covered telecommunications equipment and he can demonstrate certain other conditions have been met. Additionally, the head of an agency would be permitted, subject to the receipt of a written assurance concerning any future use of Huawei or ZTE Corporation components, to permit an entity to continue to use components through the end of their reasonable life-cycle, if the component cannot be used to route or direct data traffic or provide visibility into any data or packets transmitted or manipulated by such components. This section would further require the Director of National Intel-ligence (DNI), in coordination with the Director of the Federal Bu-reau of Investigation and the Secretaries of State, Homeland Secu-rity and Defense, to produce a report on the national security risks posed by use of technology produced by Huawei and ZTE tech-nology, especially pertaining to evidence of malicious software or hardware that enables unauthorized network access. The DNI would further be required to develop a plan to share such report with U.S. allies, partners, and U.S. cleared defense contractors and telecommunications service providers. The Director would also be required to ensure an unclassified version of the report is available for U.S. allies and partners, and well as telecommunications com-panies, that do not have access to classified information. In an April 12, 2018, House Committee on Armed Services hear-ing, the Secretary of Defense stated with respect to information and communications technology produced by companies linked to the People’s Republic of China, namely Huawei and ZTE, that he does ‘‘not think that’s wise’’ for the Department to allow equipment manufactured and maintained by those companies to be a part of its supply chain. The committee is also aware that the Federal Communications Commission in an April 17, 2018, meeting voted unanimously to approve a proposed rule that would deny Universal Service Fund support to purchase equipment or services from companies posing a national security threat to the integrity of communications net-works or the communications supply chain. The commission specifi-cally cited the risks posed by Huawei and ZTE in the notice of pro-posed rulemaking. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

164 TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—ORGANIZATION ANDMANAGEMENT OF THEDEPARTMENT OFDEFENSEGENERALLYSection 901—Authority of Secretary of Defense to Determine Command and Control Relationships This section would amend section 113 of title 10, United States Code, to specify that the Secretary of Defense may define command and control relationships within the Department of Defense as nec-essary to support the Department’s objectives and missions. Section 902—Civilian Personnel Management This section would amend section 129 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to consider the cost of the Department of Defense military and contract workforces, along with the cost of the civilian workforce, when managing the civilian personnel workforce of the Department. Section 903—Performance of Civilian Functions by Military Personnel This section would amend section 129a of title 10, United States Code, to require that when the Secretaries of the military depart-ments determine that the performance of civilian functions by mili-tary personnel is cost effective, that they further consider whether the functions performed are consistent with the military occupa-tional specialty for which the military personnel have been trained. Section 904—Roles of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence This section would amend section 134 of title 10, United States Code, with respect to the authorities of the Under Secretary of De-fense for Policy. It would amend the Under Secretary’s responsi-bility for supervising and directing the activities of the Department with respect to export controls, to focus on policy making within the Department as it pertains to export controls. This section would add a new authority to those of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, subject to the Secretary of Defense, with respect to the development, implementation, and integration across the Department of Defense of the National Defense Strategy and other strategic policy guidance for the activities of the Depart-ment across all geographic regions and military functions and do-mains. It would also provide the Under Secretary with the author-ity, subject to the Secretary of Defense, of integrating the activities of the Department of Defense within the interagency process with respect to the National Security Strategy of the United States. The committee notes that the Summary to the 2018 National De-fense Strategy stated that ‘‘the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

165 powers.’’ The committee asserts that it is essential that a senior ci-vilian official be responsible for, subject to the Secretary of Defense, the Department’s efforts with respect to strategic competition. This section would also amend section 137 of title 10, United States Code, with respect to the authorities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The Under Secretary of Defense for In-telligence would assume the authority for supervising and directing the activities of the Department of Defense with respect to tech-nology protection in the export controls process, other than the pol-icy making activities that are the responsibility of the Under Sec-retary of Defense for Policy. Numerous senior Department of Defense civilian and military of-ficials have testified to the risk to U.S. military technological supe-riority and the committee believes that the Under Secretary of De-fense for Policy and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intel-ligence, respectively, have specific roles in, and expertise with, pro-tecting sensitive technologies. Section 905—Designation of Navy Commanders This section would amend section 5013 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Navy to designate a single commander within the Department of the Navy responsible for en-suring Navy forces are available for tasking and deployment, in-cluding those Navy forces that may be operating from a forward de-ployed location. This section would also require the Secretary to designate a single commander for all Navy shipyards, including any located overseas. The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy’s Strategic Readiness Review cited unclear command relationships as a con-tributing factor to the surface force accidents suffered by 7th Fleet ships in 2017. The committee encourages the Secretary to consider designating the Commander, Fleet Forces Command, as the re-sponsible commander for tasking and deployment, as that official performs that function now for all naval forces excepting the Pacific Fleet. The committee notes that the Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, has the overall responsibility within the Department of the Navy for scheduling and maintaining Navy vessels in public and private shipyards, with the exception of the U.S. Naval Ship Repair Facility and Japan Regional Maintenance Center. The com-mittee encourages the Secretary to consider designating the Com-mander, Naval Sea Systems Command, as the single commander of naval shipyards, including the facility located in Japan. SUBTITLEB—COMPREHENSIVEPENTAGONBUREAUCRACYREFORMANDREDUCTIONSection 911—Authorities and Responsibilities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense This section would authorize the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of the Department of Defense to carry out the elimination of agencies and activities (other than those established by statute and other than the Department of Defense Education Activity), and to maximize efficiency across the Department with respect to civil-

166 ian resource management, logistics, services contracting, and real estate management (other than with respect to the military depart-ments). Section 132a of title 10, United States Code, would be fur-ther amended by requiring each Defense Agency and Department of Defense Field Activity to transmit their budgets to the CMO for review before submission to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comp-troller). The CMO would submit a report concerning all proposed budgets to the Secretary of Defense not later than January 31 of the year preceding the budgets’ fiscal year. The Secretary would submit a report by March 31 with a plan of action and proposed legislation for each budget the CMO did not certify. No Defense Agency or Department of Defense Field Activity funds, with respect to civilian resource, logistics, services contracting, and real estate management shall be obligated or expended until the CMO ap-proves the plan; such process shall be conducted without impact to the processes carried out by the Director of National Intelligence. The Department’s Chief Management Officer would reduce or eliminate duplicative cross-enterprise functions across all Defense Agencies and Field Activities related to civilian resource, services contracting, logistics, or real estate management. Not later than March 1, 2020, the CMO would submit a plan to the congressional defense committees. The CMO would certify that the Department has achieved at least 25 percent savings of these functions within these Defense Agencies and Field Activities by January 1, 2021; the Government Accountability Office would verify and validate the CMO’s certification. This would be a recurring requirement, each 5 years (beginning January 1, 2021), with the second iteration ex-panding the scope of the review to include the military depart-ments. Section 912—Authorities and Responsibilities of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense This section would require the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) to maximize efficiency among Department IGs with respect to any cross-enterprise IG activities. This section would re-quire each organization or element IG to submit a budget to the Department of Defense IG for review before submission to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). The Department IG would submit a report about the budgets to the Secretary not later than January 31 of the year preceding the budget’s fiscal year. The Secretary would submit a report to Congress about budgets the De-partment IG did not certify by March 31 each year, including a plan of action and recommended legislation. No IG funds may be obligated or expended until the Department IG certifies the IG’s budget. The Department IG would submit a plan for compliance with the above not later than March 1, 2020. The committee understands there are almost 30 different inspec-tors general (IGs) in the Department of Defense, including: the De-partment of Defense IG, the four military service IGs, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the nine combat-ant commands, the Defense Media Activity, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Security Service, and Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The com-mittee believes this proliferation of IG offices merits oversight from VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

167 a lead IG to determine if there are opportunities for elimination of waste, redundancy, and duplication. Section 913—Transition of Certain Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief Management Officer (CMO), to submit a plan to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2020, concerning the transfer and migration of all Defense Information Systems Agency information technology contracting and acquisition services, and senior leader communications functions, to other De-partment elements. This section would require the CMO to eliminate the Washington Headquarters Service not later than January 1, 2021. The CMO would transfer any essential functions to other appropriate ele-ments of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and eliminate the others. The CMO would be required to submit a plan to the congressional defense committees to accomplish the above by March 1, 2020. This section would also require the CMO to review the efficiency and effectiveness of each Defense Agency and Department of De-fense Field Activity and to examine potential duplication among the agencies and activities. The CMO would be required to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on his findings not later than March 1, 2020, including any recommendations to eliminate an agency or activity or transfer some or all of its func-tions to another Department entity. This section would also clarify the Secretary’s authority to estab-lish or terminate any Defense Agency or Department of Defense Field Activity, other than entities that are specifically established or terminated by act of Congress. Section 914—Actions To Increase the Efficiency and Transparency of the Defense Logistics Agency This section would require that the Director of the Defense Lo-gistics Agency (DLA) and the Chief Management Officer (CMO) jointly implement a comprehensive system not later than January 1, 2021, that enables customers to view items and materials avail-able to customers, the delivery status of items and materials in transit, and predictive analytics designed to improve the system’s efficiency. This section would also require the Director of DLA and the CMO to jointly reduce charged rates by at least 10 percent, elimi-nate duplication of services, and establish specific goals and metrics to ensure the agency is fulfilling its mission by January 1, 2021. This section would also require the Director of DLA and the CMO to jointly submit a plan to accomplish the above to the con-gressional defense committees by March 1, 2020. Section 915—Review of Functions of Defense Contract Audit Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency This section would direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Ac-quisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

168 (Comptroller) to conduct a joint review of the Defense Contract Au-diting Agency and Defense Contract Management Agency to vali-date their missions and functions and determine if any of their functions could be more appropriately performed by the other Agency, any other organization within the Department of Defense, or commercial providers. This review would also validate the con-tinued need for two separate Agencies with oversight for defense contracting. The Secretary of Defense shall submit, not later than March 1, 2020, a report to the congressional defense committees that includes the results of this review. Section 916—Streamlining of Defense Finance and Accounting Services This section would require that, not later than January 1, 2021, the Chief Management Officer (CMO) and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall jointly carry out activities to make the Defense Finance and Accounting Services more efficient and effec-tive. This section would further require that, not later than March 1, 2020, the CMO and Comptroller shall jointly submit a plan for car-rying out such activities to the congressional defense committees. Section 917—Reduction in Number of Chief Information Officers in the Senior Executive Service This section would require that, starting in calendar year 2021, there may not be more than five ‘‘Chief Information Officers’’’ in the Department of Defense. The committee understands that there are at least 60 Senior Ex-ecutive Service grade positions in the Department of Defense with the position of ‘‘Chief Information Officer’’. The committee is concerned that this number of senior personnel with this same responsibility injects duplication, redundancy, and slows the Department’s ability to swiftly react to the requirements of the Department in terms of information technology and respond-ing to the cyber domain of warfare. Section 918—General Provisions This section would provide authority for the Secretary of Defense and the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense to consolidate certain reporting requirements established in this Act. This section would also define certain terms used in this Act and make certain conforming changes in title 10, United States Code. SUBTITLEC—OTHERMATTERSSection 921—Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Policy and Oversight Council This section would direct the Under Secretary of Research and Engineering to establish an Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Policy and Oversight Council to continuously improve re-search, innovation, policy, joint processes, and procedures that fa-cilitate the development, acquisition, integration, advancement, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

169 and sustainment of artificial intelligence and machine learning throughout the Department of Defense. Section 922—Limitation on Transfer of the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Division of the Navy This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the timeline, costs, risks, and benefits of transferring the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Division, Dahlgren, Virginia, to another location. The report would be required not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section would further prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from transferring or preparing to transfer the Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Defense Divi-sion to another location until 45 days after submission of the re-port. TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST COUNTER-DRUGACTIVITIESColombian Security and the U.S.-Colombian Partnership The peace accords between the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in August 2016 was a landmark event that ended over 50 years of armed conflict in Colombia. As a result of the agreement, the Colombian legisla-ture passed, and the Government of Colombia implemented, sev-eral portions of the peace accords, which included demobilization and reintegration processes for FARC members. The committee is encouraged by the progress of the Colombian people and its Gov-ernment in implementing the peace accord legislation. Colombian leadership has made great strides in bringing sta-bility to the country, developing integration pathways for the FARC political party, disarming over 11,000 FARC members, imple-menting rural development, establishing rule of law, and reinte-grating FARC members into society. The committee notes that complete implementation of other pieces of the peace accords, in-cluding land reform and combating FARC dissidents who have cho-sen not to disarm, will likely take decades. The committee commends the Government of Colombia for its continued leadership in working to end decades of violence and in-stability with the FARC and other armed groups in Colombia. The committee is also aware that security issues remain a problem in Colombia, including transnational criminal organizations seizing territorial control post peace accords, FARC dissidents choosing not to disarm and continuing criminal behavior, and increasing coca production over the past 2 years. Further, the committee commends the Colombian military on its professionalization, successes in bringing security to Colombia and being the exporters of security to global organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and regional neighbors includ-ing the Republic of Honduras, the Republic of Guatemala, and the United Mexican States. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

170 Over the past 17 years, the U.S. has assisted Colombia in the fight for its security and stability. The committee has supported these efforts and acknowledges the continuing vital importance of the U.S.-Colombian relationship for bringing strength and stability to the hemisphere. DOD Support to Combating the Opioid Epidemic The committee is deeply concerned about the rising numbers of opioid-related deaths in the United States. This nationwide health epidemic affects millions of people and their families. The abuse of opioids, both prescription and illicit opioids, is a public health emergency as categorized by the President in January 2018. This crisis highlights national security concerns including illicit traf-ficking of opioids, synthetic opioids, to include Fentanyl, and pre-cursors for the production of opioids by transnational criminal or-ganizations (TCOs), and their networks which have supply chains that extend into south and east Asia. The committee believes that the Department of Defense can play a vital role in support of lead U.S. agencies to address this crisis. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, no later than September 30, 2018, to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services with an assessment of the assistance the Department is providing to lead U.S. government agencies to combat the opioid crisis. This report should include an assessment of resources available to assist other U.S. government partners in their strategy to combat the opioid epidemic to include the United States Postal Service, and an analysis of potential opportunities for the Department to provide assistance in the future. United States-Mexico Security Cooperation The committee recognizes the importance of the relationship be-tween the United States and the United Mexican States. The United States continues to face a nationwide epidemic of opioid ad-diction. Mexico continues to face violence, corruption, and insta-bility as a result of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) producing opioids and other illicit substances for distribution in the United States. The unlawful activity of the TCOs creates insta-bility, violence, and insecurity in both the United States and Mex-ico. The committee believes these shared security challenges can only be countered cooperatively as each nation addresses illicit traf-ficking, violence, and production and distribution of illicit narcotics. The strength of the military-to-military relationship between the United States and Mexico is vital in combating these challenges. The committee encourages efforts to continue the development of the strong relationship and partnership between the U.S. Armed Forces and the Mexican Armed Forces. OTHERMATTERSAssessment of Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Involun-tary Mobilization Plans to Support Special Operations Activities During review of the fiscal year 2019 President’s budget request and related activities in support of Air Force Special Operations

171 Command (AFSOC), the committee determined that a small num-ber of Air National Guard units and all Air Force Reserve Com-mand units that support AFSOC missions and force presentation requirements do not possess a current, validated involuntary mobi-lization plan that complies with various Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, and Special Operations Command in-structions or policies. The committee is concerned that without suf-ficient and validated involuntary mobilization plans that detail how the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve Command in-tend to support AFSOC as operational reserve units, should the need arise for Special Operations Command to fully mobilize forces in support of global special operations activities, the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command may lack the capability and capacity to support the mission. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2019, that assesses invol-untary mobilization plans for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command units that support Air Force Special Operations missions and activities. The Comptroller General should assess, at a minimum: (1) the existence and recency of an involuntary mobilization plan; (2) the sufficiency and validity of the plan as compared to a unit’s Designed Operational Capability statement, authorized and as-signed manpower levels, authorized and assigned equipment, facili-ties, and support functions necessary to execute the plan; (3) comparison with existing Department of Defense policy and regulations governing mobilization-to-dwell and deployment-to- dwell goals and objectives; (4) any discrepancies, shortfalls, or gaps associated with the aforementioned areas of assessment; and (5) any additional information the Comptroller General would find useful to support the briefing. Briefing on Ukrainian Special Operations Forces Training The committee recognizes the critical role played by U.S. and partner assistance in training, advising, and equipping Ukrainian military and security forces over the last several years, especially at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center in Yavoriv, Ukraine. This training facility has facilitated the successful com-pletion of numerous joint, combined exercises up to the battalion level and has better enabled multi-domain readiness of Ukrainian forces. By employing the instrumented training capability at this center, United States Army Europe has led the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine in greatly enhancing the operational capa-bility, performance, and professionalism of Ukrainian forces. The committee further understands that such joint, combined training is scheduled to conclude in 2020 and that the Ukrainian General Staff is aware of acute needs, identified in October 2016 and restated in December 2017, to modernize the International Peacekeeping and Security Center before such training ends. These requirements include refurbishing and adding multiple integrated laser engagement systems, enhancing range and battlefield effects, and developing an urban operations training system. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

172 Finally, the committee understands that since their establish-ment in 2016, Ukrainian special operations forces have grown in both numbers and capabilities with a focus on unconventional mis-sions such as counterterrorism and drug interdiction operations. In addition, Ukrainian land forces have grown, requiring additional training to support skills development in support of combined exer-cises with NATO and U.S. forces. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense com-mittees, not later than September 30, 2018, with a briefing on cur-rent and planned U.S. support to Ukrainian special operations and land forces training, including but not limited to: detailed assess-ments of both the training center at Berdychiv, Ukraine and a land forces training complex in the Mykolaiv District near Odessa, Ukraine; analysis of training requirements; and a plan for potential U.S. funding assistance to new or modernized training facilities. Civil Support Team Information Management System The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau Weap-ons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (CST) currently field the CST Information Management System (CIMS). CIMS provides a common operation picture and promotes information sharing and real-time collaboration. CIMS also supports the CST mission of as-sisting and advising first responders and facilitating communica-tions with other Federal resources in an emergency. The committee encourages the expansion of CIMS to establish an enterprise-wide capable tool, commonly referred to as the National Guard Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Response Enterprise Information Management System 2018+ (NG CIMS 2018+). The committee believes that expansion will increase the ca-pabilities of the CIMS to support other National Guard Bureau forces, such as the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package and Homeland Defense Response Force units. The committee notes that the timeline the Department of De-fense previously presented to the committee in their September 8, 2015, report ‘‘Civil Support Team Information Management Sys-tem’’ has been delayed. The committee, therefore, directs the Sec-retary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 1, 2018, on the plan for the develop-ment of NG CIMS 2018+, including a description of timelines, mile-stones, fielding, and completion dates. Close Combat Lethality Task Force The Committee understands that military operations still require our units to close with and destroy the enemy. The Committee also notes that, despite comprising a tiny fraction of total Department of Defense personnel, the ground close combat formations primarily tasked to close with and destroy the enemy bear a unique burden, reflected in them historically accounting for almost 90% of casual-ties. The Committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense estab-lished the Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF) on Feb-ruary 8, 2018 in order to implement select initiatives identified by the 2017 Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation’s Close Combat VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

173 Strategic Portfolio Review. The Committee also notes that the CCLTF further aims to improve the personnel policies, training methods, and equipment to update the training of ground close combat formations to reflect available technology, human factors science, and talent management best practices. The Committee notes that, relative to the overall size of the De-partment budget, the cost of supporting modernization to equip-ment and training for ground close combat formations is relatively small. The Committee believes that increased investments in these units’ personnel, equipment, readiness, and training offer outsize returns for our military’s combat capabilities. The Committee notes that greater tactical integration of existing unmanned aircraft—specifically medium-altitude, long-endurance aircraft—offers a unique opportunity to address deficiencies in close combat units organic sensing, load-bearing, communications extension, and lethality capabilities. In addition, the Committee notes that, since 2001, special oper-ations forces (SOF) have taken on an increasing share of global missions, driven by the responsiveness of their capabilities to com-batant commander requirements. The Committee believes that the CCLTF’s efforts to bring SOF capabilities and training methodolo-gies to line close combat formations is an important element of the overall CCLTF effort. In order to allow the Committee to fully support the efforts of the CCLTF, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2018 on the CCLTF’s findings, including key focus areas for im-provements in ground close combat equipment, training and readi-ness; proposals for rationalizing personnel management for ground close combat formations; the feasibility of establishing a Joint Close Combat Leader Center as a center of excellence for small-unit in-fantry leadership; the feasibility of making existing unmanned air-craft organic to ground close combat units; and the impact of im-proving line close combat formation capabilities and interoper-ability with SOF, as well as any other topics the Secretary deems appropriate. Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Authority for United States Facilities and Assets The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) provided the Depart-ment of Defense a modest expansion of existing counter-unmanned aircraft system (C–UAS) authority in section 130i of title 10, United States Code, to address additional mission areas that the Department determined are critical, high-priority U.S. facilities and assets essential to the Department carrying out its mission. The committee appreciates the Department’s deliberate and thoughtful implementation of the C–UAS authority to ensure the safety and security of Department assets and facilities, in addition to ensuring the safety of operations within the U.S. National Air-space System. The committee also notes that the Department, in conjunction with the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administra-tion, is required to provide to relevant congressional committees a semiannual briefing on how the current C–UAS is being utilized VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

174 and implemented, and various other items of information per-taining to the authority. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 1, 2018, the date of the next scheduled semi-annual C–UAS briefing requirement to Congress. The briefing should include a list of capability gaps and shortfalls for C–UAS systems or mission areas of the Department that are not currently included in the existing C–UAS authority, but deemed to be high- priority or critical facilities or assets contributing to the success of the Department in executing its mission. The briefing should also include a list of existing Department research and development, or test and evaluation locations within the military services, that cur-rently participate and specialize in C–UAS capabilities in the areas of detection and tracking, hard-kill defeat prediction, or improvised explosive/improvised explosive device performance assessment ca-pability. The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to leverage existing deployment, operations, and test and evalua-tion activities and operational capabilities for C–UAS that are oc-curring at various U.S. overseas basing locations in order to deter-mine what existing C–UAS technologies and capabilities could fea-sibly and viably be deployed to protect U.S. facility and asset loca-tions requiring C–UAS capability. Counterterrorism Effectiveness Research The committee recognizes that basic research into the effective-ness of current counterterrorism policies and strategy is critical to informing and shaping future efforts. The committee understands that there is currently a wide range of social science research in these areas that should be leveraged, including better use of and integration with existing research by organizations maintaining databases of terrorism incidents globally. For example, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) is a university-based re-search and education center. The center is comprised of an inter-national network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. START supports the research efforts of leading social scientists at more than 50 academic and research institutions across the country and the globe. The committee is aware the START program supports more than 14 terrorism and counterterrorism related datasets that are used across civilian and defense agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in order to di-rectly inform international, Federal, State, and local training and educational programs. However, the budget request for fiscal year 2019 did not include funding for this effort. The committee believes that it is within the purview of the Department of Defense, and specifically U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) as the Coordinating Authority for Countering Violent Extremist Organizations, to foster academically rigorous studies of terrorism, like the START initiative, to provide a foundational understanding for how to assess the effectiveness of specific counterterrorism activities and programs, and best prac-tices to inform counterterrorism policies. Further, the committee VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

175 believes that as the Coordinating Authority for Countering Weap-ons of Mass Destruction (CWMD), SOCOM may also derive similar benefits for the Department of Defense from research pertaining to CWMD strategies, policies, and programs, by leveraging and en-hancing programs like START. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 30, 2018, on the feasibility and ad-visability of funding programs like START. Development and Procurement of Combat Equipment and Clothing for Female Servicemembers in Combat Occupations The Committee notes that in June 2015 the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology provided guid-ance to the services to take immediate steps to ensure that combat equipment is properly designed and fitted for female servicemembers. In 2016, the Committee recognized that the Serv-ices had been conducting anthropometric studies on male and fe-male servicemembers in order to properly outfit and equip their re-spective servicemembers. However, although more than 600 women have competed for and joined newly opened ground combat units in the Army and Marine Corps, the Committee is concerned that properly designed and fitted combat equipment, gear, and clothing is not consistently available to women warfighters. That concern also encompasses other women from all the services who continue to deploy to areas where they too need properly fitting combat and organizational gear. The Committee believes that female servicemembers in physically demanding occupations like infantry and armor are not positioned for success and their lethality and safety is compromised if they are required to train and perform in equipment not designed for their body type. Properly designed and fitted equipment for women should be available beginning with ini-tial entry training through any and all deployments. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the service chiefs, to submit a report to the Com-mittees on Armed Services no later than 180 days after the enact-ment of this Act. The report shall include: (1) Information about the status of procuring and issuing the fol-lowing to all females serving in or training for, infantry and armor occupations and to those from other units and occupations deploy-ing to areas where they will require such equipment (from the be-ginning of training through any deployments): (1) personal protec-tive equipment (2) organizational clothing and individual equip-ment (including for example tanker apparel, mechanics coveralls, tanker headsets, and ruck frames); and (3) the female urinary di-verter; (2) Information about timing, including the date on which such equipment will be available; (3) What additional legislative and funding authorities are re-quired to expedite procurement; (4) The results of any surveys and studies that have addressed the availability, serviceability, and effectiveness of personal protec-tive equipment, organizational clothing and individual equipment, and the female urinary diverter device.

176 Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account In the committee reports accompanying the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 through 2017 (H. Rept. 113– 446, H. Rept. 114–102, H. Rept. 114–537), the committee encour-aged the Department of Defense to take into consideration the cur-rent balance within the Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense (FCF,D) account when determining foreign currency rates in future budget submissions. When the FCF,D account has a balance close to or at the statu-tory cap of $970.0 million, the committee believes the budgeted rates should be adjusted to generate losses within the account, thereby drawing down the FCF,D account balance. This would re-duce the operation and maintenance (O&M) budget requirement for foreign goods and services, allowing excess funds to be allocated to other readiness programs without changing the budget topline. However, as the FCF,D account realizes a net gain, these gains re-main in O&M and are used for purposes not originally requested in the annual budget submission to Congress. Without visibility of these transactions through a reprogramming request, the com-mittee cannot determine whether funds remaining in the FCF,D account are being used to reduce current readiness shortfalls. The committee observes that the Department continues to not take the current balance into account when determining foreign currency rates. Due to lack of the use of current balances to struc-ture foreign currency rates, the committee recommends a reduction in the O&M budget for fiscal year 2019 as shown in section 4301 of this Act, a reduction in the Military Personnel budget for fiscal year 2019 as shown in section 4401 of this Act, and a reduction in the Defense Health Program budget for fiscal year 2019 as shown in section 4501 of this Act, and realigns those funds to support higher priority defense requirements throughout the Department. Friendly Force Identification in Close Air Support The committee is aware that tactical aircraft controllers use a multitude of commercial-off-the-shelf infrared (IR) strobes for friendly force identification in close combat operations, and that U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has validated and ap-proved a Thermal-Identification, Friend or Foe (T–IFF) Capability Production Document (CPD) to improve existing capability. The committee notes the T–IFF program would provide for an ‘‘out of band’’ beacon which should align with current advanced targeting pods used on tactical aircraft. The committee also notes that SOCOM is planning two user evaluations in 2018 to assess poten-tial commercial off-the-shelf solutions that could also potentially meet the requirements in the TIFF CPD. While the committee is supportive of these efforts and encour-ages their acceleration, it is concerned that current infrared mark-ing strobes currently fielded to U.S. ground forces, to include U.S. Special Operation Forces, are not easily detectable to tactical air-craft performing close air support, and could result in fratricide. Additionally, the committee is aware of multiple programs in progress across the military services to address this requirement. These efforts and requirements must be coordinated and commu-nicated across the military services and SOCOM to expeditiously VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

177 provide upgraded IR strobes that can be detected by advanced tar-geting pods. The committee directs the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, in coordination with the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 14, 2018, on their efforts to synchronize a friendly force identification mecha-nism, such as IR strobes, for use during combat close air support operations. The briefing should also include efforts to ensure that these mechanisms are detectable by advanced targeting pods used on current tactical aircraft. Genetic and Medical Information Security Recent advancements in information and computational capabili-ties, along with advancements in synthetic biology and genomics, have resulted in the convergence of data and life sciences. The com-mittee is troubled by the potential risks posed by the proliferation of personal biological information, including DNA sequences, elec-tronic medical records, medical claims processing data, pharmacy records, health information exchanges, and activity trackers. The committee recognizes this information is essential for the develop-ment of precision medicine, but is concerned about the potential lack of appropriate security control over the data of service mem-bers due to the growing efforts by adversaries to acquire this infor-mation. The committee believes acquisition of this information by adversaries may lead to the development of new biological threats. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on the Department of Defense’s effort to secure service members’ genetic, medical, and lifestyle information. The briefing shall include information on the location, access control, and security protocols of all databases with this information; and offer policy recommendations for protecting this information. The committee further directs the Director of the Defense Intel-ligence Agency to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on foreign intelligence services attempts to collect this information on Department of Defense per-sonnel, including: (1) attempts by foreign intelligence services to collect genetic data, medical records, and any other personal health or biological information; (2) use of non-traditional intelligence collection techniques, to in-clude foreign investment in commercial entities that offer genetic data analysis, medical record administration, and other health in-formation services; and (3) use of this data lost through data breaches, unauthorized dis-closures, or non-traditional collection techniques to enable tar-geting of U.S. persons. MQ–9 Enterprise Supporting Air Combat Command and Air Force Special Operations Command Activities After a detailed review, the committee has determined that a system to manage and develop MQ–9 specific remotely piloted air-craft (RPA) aircrews does not exist between Air Force Special Oper-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

178 ations Command (AFSOC), Air Combat Command (ACC), and the Air Force Personnel Center. The committee is concerned that ACC is the Air Force’s primary entity responsible for managing, assign-ing, and transitioning MQ–9 aircrews for AFSOC and that AFSOC may not have the visibility it needs into ACC ‘‘talent management’’ processes to sufficiently support AFSOC future planning and nor-malization of operations tempo. Moreover, the role of the Air Force Personnel Center’s in managing and career-shaping MQ–9 aircrews is unclear. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of ACC, in co-ordination with the Commander of AFSOC and the Commander of the Air Force Personnel Center, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 19, 2018, on how MQ–9 aircrews are assigned, managed, and developed among ACC and AFSOC. The briefing should also include an update re-garding the Air Force’s MQ–9 Culture and Process Improvement Program activities for each command, and each command’s progress for acquiring the necessary manpower authorizations, and actual assigned manpower, to achieve deployment to dwell oper-ations tempo to comply with Department of Defense policies. National Guard Access to Department of Defense Owned Unmanned Aircraft Systems The committee notes that section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) re-quired that not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of Public Law 115–91, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and the Commander, U.S. Pacific Com-mand, complete an efficiency and effectiveness review of the gov-ernance structure, coordination processes, documentation, and tim-ing requirements stipulated in Department of Defense policy memorandum 15–002, ‘‘Guidance for the Domestic Use of Un-manned Aircraft Systems (UAS).’’ In addition, not later than 30 days after the policy review is completed, the Secretary of Defense is required to submit the results of the review to the congressional defense committees. The committee expects that during the policy review, Department of Defense officials will implement a proc-essing timeline for reviewing National Guard UAS utilization re-quests that appropriately balances reviewing the request for com-pliance with established policy and reviewing the request in a time-ly manner that coincides with the responsiveness, urgency, and operational planning factors dictated by the specific mission the UAS capability is being requested to support. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than 30 days after the policy review required by section 1084 of Public Law 115–91 is completed. The briefing should include in-formation related to the processing timeline that the Secretary es-tablished during the policy review and how the timeline will be im-plemented. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

179 Preparedness of U.S. Forces To Counter North Korean Chemical and Biological Weapons The committee is aware of reports of the Democratic People’s Re-public of Korea’s pursuit of the essential laboratories, equipment, and skills for an advanced biological weapons program, in addition to reports of existing stockpiles of chemical weapons. The 2017 Na-tional Security Strategy states that North Korea is pursuing chem-ical and biological weapons, which could be delivered by missile. The strategy also states that the Department of Defense will en-sure U.S. military forces can operate effectively in the face of bio-logical weapons attacks, and that our troops and critical domestic and overseas installations are effectively protected against such threats. To assist the committee in conducting its oversight of the pre-paredness of U.S. forces to respond to these threats, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the extent to which Department of Defense military units deployed to the Republic of Korea and the Department’s chemical and biologi-cal defense support units on the Korean peninsula, in the U.S. Pa-cific Command area of responsibility, and in the United States, are prepared to counter chemical and biological weapons, including: (1) detection and identification; (2) individual and collective protection; (3) medical countermeasures; (4) decontamination; (5) training and exercises; and (6) any other matters the Comptroller General deems relevant. The committee also directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on the preliminary results of the review, and submit a subse-quent report by a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. Report on NORTHCOM Response to Hurricane Maria In 2017, the United States witnessed Hurricane Maria, which had a devastating impact on Puerto Rico and required a Federal Government response. Therefore, the committee directs the Sec-retary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Admin-istrator, to submit a report by December 1, 2018 on the ongoing U.S. Government recovery effort of Hurricane Maria. The report shall include the following elements: (a) statistics on ongoing power outages; (b) the number of deaths in each U.S. state or territory af-fected; (c) measures to improve hurricane emergency response plans for insular areas and/or territories of the United States. Review of National Guard Capabilities in Support of Incident Awareness and Assessment Mission Operations The committee notes there is inconsistency among National Guard and Department of the Air Force officials in expressing what type of capabilities and which platforms are required to support the Incident Awareness and Assessment (IAA) mission of the National Guard. The committee requires clarification regarding the National Guard’s current and future capability and capacity requirements to execute the IAA mission in support of Domestic Operations VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

180 (DOMOPS) when National Guard personnel are on duty or mobi-lized under title 32, United States Code, authority, and in support of Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA) when National Guard personnel are on duty or mobilized under title 10, United States Code, authority. The committee believes it is critical for the Department of Defense to maintain a sufficient capability, capacity, and responsiveness among the Active and Reserve components of the Department when supporting missions related to homeland de-fense and responding to natural disasters or declared emergencies. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief, National Guard Bu-reau, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Northern Com-mand, the Director, Air National Guard, and the Director, Army National Guard, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 2018, that provides an Incident Aware-ness and Assessment capability and capacity roadmap for the Na-tional Guard covering the 2019 to 2023 Future Years Defense Pro-gram (FYDP). The report should describe, at a minimum: (1) the validated capability and capacity requirements defining the IAA mission in support of U.S. Northern Command, State Gov-ernors, and other Government agencies; (2) the specific platforms and quantities of platforms the Na-tional Guard will leverage, maintain, or procure to support IAA ca-pability and capacity requirements; (3) a schedule depicting specific platforms that will be procured, maintained, or divested in support of IAA capabilities and capacity over the covered time period; (4) a schedule depicting specific platforms and associated mod-ernization and upgrades that will be accomplished over the covered time period; (5) the required funding needed and currently programmed in the FYDP to support individual platforms within the IAA portfolio of capabilities; and (6) any capability or capacity gaps or shortfalls that are identi-fied over the covered time period. Senior Civilian or Military Leaders in Charge of Audit and Financial Management The committee has long maintained that a central factor of the department’s audit progress has been clear leadership and account-ability across the department. The committee is concerned that there are mid-level departments within the services and agencies that lack designated audit and financial management account-ability of senior leaders by requiring this in official position duties. Therefore, the committee directs the department to provide a re-port no later than September 30, 2018, to the congressional armed services committees on the senior civilian or military leadership re-sponsible for audit and financial management compliance of each respective department. Soo Locks The committee understands that the Soo Locks on the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, are the only waterway connec-tion from Lake Superior to the rest of the Lower Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The committee is concerned that of the

181 2 current operational locks, only the Poe Lock is large enough to accommodate the 1,000-foot carriers necessary to transport a ma-jority of the iron ore used in domestic steel production. The com-mittee notes that this lock is near the end of its 50-year useful life-span and that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reevaluating a past economic evaluation report to update the Soo Locks’ benefit to cost ratio. The committee believes that a failure at the Soo Locks would have drastic impacts on national security, in that the U.S. iron mining-integrated steel production-manufacturing supply chain is dependent on the Soo Locks, and there is no redundancy. Indeed, such a failure would cripple steel production that is used for na-tional defense priorities. Therefore, the committee urges the Chief of the Corps of Engineers and all involved executive branch agen-cies to expedite necessary reviews, analysis, and approvals in order to speed the required upgrades at the Soo Locks. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—FINANCIALMATTERSSection 1001—General Transfer Authority This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, with certain limitations, to make transfers between amounts authorized for fis-cal year 2019 in division A of this Act. This section would limit the total amount transferred under this authority to $5.0 billion. This section would also require prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made. Section 1002—Expertise in Audit Remediation This section would amend section 252(b)(2) of chapter 9A of title 10, United States Code, directing the Secretary of Defense to report the number of professionals performing auditing and audit remedi-ation services who hold certain qualifications. Section 1003—Authority To Transfer Funds to Director of National Intelligence for CAPNET This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, consistent with the authority provided in section 1001 of this Act, to transfer an amount that does not exceed $2.0 million to the Director of Na-tional Intelligence (DNI) to provide support for the operation of the CAPNET network. The committee notes its belief that, per established procedures, the Department of Defense currently has the authority to provide support to the DNI for the operation of CAPNET. Section 1004—Independent Public Accountant Audit of Financial Systems of the Department of Defense This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to ensure new or altered financial systems meet applicable Federal requirements through a review performed by an independent public accountant. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

182 SUBTITLEB—COUNTERDRUGACTIVITIESSection 1011—Department of Defense Support for Combating Opioid Trafficking and Abuse This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the nationwide opioid epidemic affecting millions of U.S. citizens. The section would also increase, by $20.0 million, Department of De-fense National Guard counterdrug programs to support the Federal Government’s efforts to combat the opioid crisis. SUBTITLEC—NAVALVESSELS ANDSHIPYARDSSection 1021—Inclusion of Operation and Sustainment Costs in Annual Naval Vessel Construction Plans This section would incorporate operations and sustainment costs into the 30-year shipbuilding plan required by section 231 of title 10, United States Code. Section 1022—Purchase of Vessels Using Funds in National Defense Sealift Fund This section expands section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, and authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to procure up to 10 for-eign-constructed ships if the Secretary certifies that the U.S. Navy has initiated an acquisition strategy for the construction of 10 new sealift vessels. Additionally, this section would limit 25 percent of the U.S. Navy Military Sealift Command’s fiscal year 2019 expend-itures until the Secretary of the Navy enters into a contract for the procurement of two used National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels, and completes the capability development document for the com-mon hull multi-mission platform. Section 1023—Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards With Funds in National Defense Sealift Fund This section would modify section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, and require a 30-day notice to the congressional defense com-mittees before entering into a contract for a used vessel authorized for procurement by section 2218 of title 10, United States Code. Section 1024—Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Chapter 633 of Title 10, United States Code, and Other Provisions of Law Regarding Naval Vessels This section updates chapter 633 of title 10, United States Code. Section 1025—Retention of Navy Hospital Ship Capability This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to retain two Mercy-class hospital ships until the Secretary has certified to the congressional defense committees that a replacement capability has been fielded. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

183 SUBTITLED—COUNTERTERRORISMSection 1031—Definition of Sensitive Military Operation This section would modify section 130f of title 10, United States Code, regarding notification requirements for sensitive military op-erations. Section 1032—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guanta-namo Bay, Cuba, to the United States This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense during the period beginning on the date of the enact-ment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2019, to transfer or release detainees at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions. Section 1033—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 This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense during the period beginning on the date of the enact-ment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2019, to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or posses-sions to house any detainee transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or imprison-ment in the custody or under the effective control of the Depart-ment of Defense. Section 1034—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guanta-namo Bay, Cuba, to Certain Countries This section would prohibit the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense during the period beginning on the date of the enact-ment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2019, to transfer, re-lease, or assist in the transfer or release of any individual detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Libya, the Fed-eral Republic of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, or the Republic of Yemen. SUBTITLEE—MISCELLANEOUSAUTHORITIES ANDLIMITATIONSSection 1041—Notification on the Provision of Defense Sensitive Support This section would modify the current Defense Sensitive Support congressional notification procedures, to include a Secretary of De-fense determination that the requesting Federal department has reasonably attempted to satisfy the requirement using internal re-sources, and that the Department of Defense is the most appro-priate Federal agency or department to satisfy the request for sup-port. This section would also add a congressional notification re-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

184 quirement for Department of Defense requests for Reverse Defense Sensitive Support from other Federal departments or agencies. Section 1042—Coordinating United States Response to Malign Foreign Influence Operations and Campaigns This section would amend section 101 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021) to explicitly task the National Security Council (NSC) to coordinate the full U.S. Government response to malign foreign influence operations and campaigns, particularly those that are cyber-enabled. This section would define ‘‘malign for-eign influence operations and campaigns,’’ and would request the President to task an NSC official with combating it, and further re-quires the President to submit a report to the designated congres-sional committees not later than 9 months after the date of the en-actment of this Act on the whole-of-government strategy for com-bating malign foreign influence operations. Section 1043—Workforce Issues for Military Realignments in the Pacific This section would amend section 1806 of title 48, United States Code, to allow the continued employment of temporary workers on Guam engaged in the military realignment to Guam or to perform service as a health care worker. This section would also exempt re-turning workers from the cap on such workers in the event of a sin-gle departure and return to Guam. Section 1044—Mitigation of Operational Risks Posed to Certain Military Aircraft by Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broad-cast Equipment This section would enable the Secretary of Defense to mitigate the operational risk posed to certain military aircraft by the Fed-eral Aviation Administration (FAA) next-generation airspace con-trol mandate that takes effect on January 1, 2020, by accommo-dating certain fighter, bomber, and other sensitive mission aircraft until the Department of Defense and FAA agree on one or more so-lutions to address Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast Out security risks or incorporate mitigation for security risks into a memorandum of agreement. The committee notes that the Department is working to meet the FAA mandate for its aircraft and supports its efforts to procure equipment and carry out modifications for its accommodated fight-er, bomber, and special mission aircraft. Section 1045—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Unmanned Surface Vehicles This section would limit the availability of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2019, until the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering certifies the Strategic Capabilities Office Ghost Fleet Overlord Unmanned Surface Vehicle program to the congressional defense committees. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

185 Section 1046—Program for Department of Defense Controlled Unclassified Information in the Hands of Industry This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish and implement a foreign ownership, control, or influence program for Department of Defense controlled unclassified information in the hands of industry. The Secretary would be required to act to ensure that prior to any company receiving controlled unclassified information or classi-fied information, or becoming a cleared defense contractor, the com-pany would have to report to the Secretary any foreign direction or controlling interest in the company or any access to intellectual property relating to classified information or controlled unclassified information. The Secretary would be required to make a determination on the basis of such a company’s report whether the company should re-ceive such information due to a risk to national security and whether such risk can be mitigated. Section 1047—Protection of Emerging and Foundational Technologies This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain a list of emerging and foundational technologies that are necessary for maintaining the national security technical ad-vantage of the United States. This section would require the Secretary to use that list to in-form the activities carried out by the Secretary relating to tech-nology protection, including under interagency processes. SUBTITLEF—STUDIES ANDREPORTSSection 1051—Additional Matter for Inclusion in Annual Report on Civilian Casualties in Connection With United States Military Operations This section would amend section 1057(b)(2) of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to include an annual reporting requirement on civilian casualties in connection with U.S. military operations. Section 1052—Department of Defense Review and Assessment on Advances in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning This section would direct the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Innovation Board and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, to carry out a review and assessment of the advances in artificial intelligence, related ma-chine learning developments, and associated technologies for mili-tary applications. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit an initial report to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and a comprehensive report not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

186 Section 1053—Report on Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure This section would prohibit certain funds authorized to be appro-priated by this Act from being obligated or expended for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure until the Secretary of Defense provides a report to the congressional defense committees on the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure. Section 1054—Report on Proposed Consolidation of Department of Defense Global Messaging and Counter Messaging Capabilities This section would limit the availability of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2019, until the Secretary of Defense provides a report to the congressional defense committees on the Department of Defense Global Messaging and Counter Messaging program. Section 1055—Comprehensive Review of Professionalism and Ethics Programs for Special Operations Forces This section would direct the Secretary of Defense, in coordina-tion with the Secretaries of the military departments, to conduct a comprehensive review of the ethics and professionalism programs of the U.S. Special Operations Command and the military depart-ments for officers and other military personnel serving in special operations forces. This section would require the Secretary of De-fense to submit the review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2019. Section 1056—Munitions Assessments and Future-Years Defense Program Requirements This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to provide all relevant documents re-lated to the Department of Defense’s munitions requirements proc-ess, as well as provide the planned funding and munitions require-ments required for fiscal year 2020 and across the Future Years Defense Program for munitions across all military services and the Missile Defense Agency. This section would also require the Under Secretary to evaluate and identify supply chain risks, including qualified supplier shortages or single source supplier vulnerabilities for munitions production. The committee notes that munitions are defined as a complete device charged with explo-sives; propellants; pyrotechnics; initiating composition; or chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material for use in operations in-cluding demolitions, to include conventional ammunition. Section 1057—Report on Establishment of Army Futures Command This section would require the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees on the Army’s plan for the establishment of Army Futures Command, to include a description of the authorities, mission, and organizational struc-ture. This section does not prohibit the Secretary of the Army from proceeding forward with any current internal organizational changes in accordance with existing authorities related to the es-tablishment of the Army Futures Command. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

187 Section 1058—Assessment of Department of Defense Electromagnetic Spectrum Warfare Enterprise This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consulta-tion with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), to de-velop an implementation plan to conduct joint campaign modeling and wargaming for joint electromagnetic spectrum operations (JEMSO) of the Department of Defense, and to submit that plan in the form of a report by February 18, 2019, to the congressional defense committees. This section would also require the Secretary and CJCS to provide various briefing presentations to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than February 25, 2019, on essential topics and functions of the Department’s JEMSO en-terprise. The committee is concerned that since the electronic warfare (EW) strategy document was released by the Department’s Elec-tronic Warfare Executive Committee in June 2017, subsequent ef-forts to strengthen, modernize, and create synergy of effort across the Department related to the JEMSO enterprise may have stag-nated within the military services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee seeks to gain a greater understanding of cur-rent JEMSO efforts since release of the EW strategy document, and the committee encourages those officials overseeing the JEMSO enterprise to reinvigorate efforts towards achieving the goals and objectives described in the EW strategy. Section 1059—Report on Support for Non-Contiguous States and Territories in the Event of Threats and Incidents This section would direct the Department of Defense to provide a report on its preparedness to provide contiguous States with tem-porary relief and emergency work in the aftermath of an emer-gency incident. Section 1060—Report on Low-Boom Flight Demonstration This section would require the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to submit a report, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Rep-resentatives describing the progress in development of the Low- Boom Flight Demonstration. Section 1061—Report on Cyber-Enabled Information Operations This section would require the President to provide the Commit-tees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep-resentatives and the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate a report not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the effects of cyber-enabled in-formation operations on the national security of the United States. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

188 SUBTITLEG—OTHERMATTERSSection 1071—Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Amendments This section would make a number of technical, conforming, and clerical amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law. Section 1072—Principal Advisor on Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate, from among the personnel of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, a Principal Advisor on Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD). Such individual shall act as the Principal Advisor to the Secretary on the activities of the Department of Defense relating to countering weapons of mass destruction. Further, this section would require a plan for realigning, restructuring, or reducing the current CWMD oversight framework of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Section 1073—Receipt of Firearm or Ammunition This section would require for the purposes of Federal firearms laws that the residency of members of the Armed Forces and their spouses be determined in the same manner. Section 1074—Federal Charter for Spirit of America This section would designate Spirit of America, a nonprofit orga-nization, as a federally chartered corporation. Section 1075—Transfer of Aircraft to Other Departments This section would amend section 1098 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) to re-lieve the United States Air Force (USAF) from the mandate to modify United States Coast Guard (USCG) HC–130H aircraft with designated capabilities for use by the United States Forest Service (USFS). The committee notes that officials from the USFS, USCG, and USAF notified the committee, and relevant other House of Rep-resentatives and Senate committees of jurisdiction, that a recently completed USFS cost-benefit analysis demonstrated it is more cost- effective, and provides greater firefighting capacity and responsive-ness, to utilize contract service provided capability instead of own-ing and operating year-round a small, organic fleet of modified HC– 130H aircraft. Section 1076—Reauthorization of National Aviation Heritage Area This section would amend title V of division J of the Consoli-dated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108–447) to establish Dayton History as the entity responsible for managing the National Aviation Heritage Area. Section 1077—Recognition of America’s Veterans This section would honor America’s veterans, including those who have not yet been appropriately recognized for their service to VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

189 the Nation, by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to carry out a parade in their honor. The Secretary would be authorized to ex-pend funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act for the display of small arms and munitions appropriate for customary cer-emonial honors and for the participation of military units that per-form customary ceremonial duties. The committee believes that, as America approaches the 100th anniversary of the 1918 Armistice ending World War I, it is appro-priate to honor a century of military service by the men and women who have sacrificed to secure America’s freedom. The committee further believes that the world they made through their sacrifices is increasingly under threat from competitors like the Russian Fed-eration and the People’s Republic of China. The committee is con-cerned that far too many veterans, including veterans of the con-flicts in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, have been denied the public display of gratitude their service deserves and therefore the committee believes now is the right time to celebrate a century of patriotic sacrifice and service. Section 1078—National Commission on Military Aviation Safety This section would establish a National Commission on Military Aviation Safety. The commission would undertake a comprehensive study and deliver a report not later than June 1, 2019, on military aviation mishaps occurring between fiscal years 2013–18. Section 1079—Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support This section would amend sections 669a, 669g, and 669h of title 16, United States Code, to expand opportunities for construction and sustainment of target practice and marksmanship training fa-cilities at public target ranges on Federal and non-Federal land. Section 1080—Sense of Congress on Adversary Air Capabilities This section would express the sense of Congress that each De-partment of Defense facility housing an F–22 aircraft squadron should have adversary air capabilities to improve training of F–22 aircrews. Section 1081—Sense of Congress Regarding Organic Attack Aviator Training Capability This section would express the sense of Congress that the Army National Guard should retain rotary wing attack aviation units as well as organic training capacity such as the Western and Eastern Army Aviation Training Sites. Section 1082—Sense of Congress on the Legacy, Contributions, and Sacrifices of American Indian and Alaska Natives in the Armed Forces This section would express the sense of Congress on the legacy, contributions, and sacrifices of American Indian and Alaska Na-tives in the Armed Forces, and commits to ensuring progress for these groups with regard to representation in senior leadership po-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

190 sitions, improved access to resources, and support for families and tribal communities. Section 1083—Amateur Radio Parity This section would require the Federal Communications Commis-sion to amend section 97.15 of title 47, Code of Federal Regula-tions, to prohibit the application of any private land use restriction to amateur radio stations in a manner that would preclude commu-nications in an amateur radio service. Section 1084—Sense of Congress Regarding the International Borders of the United States This section would express the sense of Congress that oper-ational control of the international borders of the U.S. is critical to national security, the U.S. must devote adequate resources to se-curing the border, and the Department of Defense must have ade-quate resources to support the mission to secure the international borders of the U.S. while maintaining combat readiness. Section 1085—Program To Commemorate 75th Anniversary of World War II This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a program to commemorate the 75th anniversary of World War II; such program would be authorized to include the provision of sup-port to other Federal Government agencies, and to State and local governments. The Secretary would be authorized to spend not more than $2.0 million for fiscal year 2019 for the activities of the Department of Defense World War II Commemoration Fund. TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Civilian Talent Recruitment The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense and the military departments encounter difficulty recruiting highly spe-cialized civilians in science, technology, engineering, and mathe-matics (STEM) fields due to pay and other compensation limita-tions imposed by the Office of Personnel Management general schedule pay scales. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than January 31, 2019, on the challenges associ-ated with the Department’s efforts to hire organic civilians in the STEM fields. The briefing must include the following elements: (1) recommendations on how the Department can use profes-sional pay incentives, such as special or incentive pay, like those provided to uniformed career fields such as pilots or medical profes-sionals;

191 (2) impacts any delays in hiring have on the Department and the services’ medium- and long-term technical capabilities; and (3) an assessment of the average time it takes for the Depart-ment of Defense and the military services to hire STEM civilians and recommendations for how this process can be improved. Direct Hiring Authority The committee notes that section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) pro-vides direct-hire authority to the Secretary of Defense for post-sec-ondary students and recent graduates. Under this authority, the Secretary may recruit and appoint qualified recent graduates and current post-secondary students to competitive service positions in professional and administrative occupations within the Department of Defense. These appointments cannot exceed 15 percent of the number of hires made into professional and administrative occupa-tions. Further, section 1110 of Public Law 114–328 allows for di-rect-hire authority for the Department for Financial Management Experts not exceeding 10 percent of the number of hires. The committee recognizes that additional hiring challenges exist throughout the Department and at many installations, and notes that additional direct-hiring authority may allow for more efficient and effective hiring of talented personnel in the fields of cybersecu-rity, engineering, science, and cost analysis positions. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the military departments, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than January 31, 2019, on the effectiveness of existing direct-hire authority and recommenda-tions for any necessary expansion of or changes to the existing au-thority to improve the Department’s ability to hire technically skilled personnel in a timely manner. Presidential Management Fellows Program The committee recognizes that the Presidential Management Fel-lows (PMF) program has been one of the most successful means of recruiting the nation’s top graduate students into U.S. government service. Consistent with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the committee recognizes the PMF program’s role in recruiting highly- qualified, talented, and innovative graduate students in order to create the ‘‘motivated, diverse, and highly skilled civilian work-force.’’ In the committee’s view, during the four decades since the program’s founding, the Department of Defense has benefited greatly from the program. Despite this, the centrally managed process for hiring PMFs into the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has been suspended since 2015. While Department of De-fense components are permitted to hire PMFs, unfortunately, they are unable to replicate the well-rounded experience created by the rotating assignments of the OSD program that is so crucial to lead-ership at the highest levels. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to sub-mit a report by January 31, 2019, on the PMF program. The report shall include the following elements: (a) a description of the PMF program historically and as it currently exists within the Depart-ment; (b) statistics on federal civilian employees who entered the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

192 Department from the PMF program since its inception, including the overall number, their average length of tenure, the component by which they were hired, their entering and departing career civil-ian ranks, and an accounting for any notable subsequent leader-ship positions in the national security field; (c) an explanation for why the centrally managed process for hiring PMFs into the Office of the Secretary of Defense has been suspended and recommenda-tions for any changes to policy, authorities, and resources required to resume it; (d) an assessment of the benefits and costs of resum-ing the use of and expanding the size of the PMF program across the Department; (e) recommendations for any changes to policy, au-thorities, and resources required to improve the program and expe-dite the on-boarding process for PMFs. Recruitment and Hiring of Navy Astronomers The Committee recognizes the critical missions of the U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO) and the Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station (NOFS) to the Department. The Committee is aware of challenges in recent years to recruitment and timely hiring of astronomers at NOFS, which risks key astronomical observation shifts going missed. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to pro-vide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House no later than December 31, 2018, outlining: the hiring process and timeline for astronomy positions at USNO and NOFS; identifying reasons for delays in approving positions and hiring for such posi-tions; what the Navy is doing to shorten timelines; barriers and challenges to recruitment of individuals with relevant expertise; identifying impediments to hiring such individuals in a timely basis; and identifying impediments to recruiting and relocating in-dividuals to NOFS. Workplace Flexibility for Federal Civilians The committee recognizes efforts taken by the military services to increase workplace flexibility to attract and retain talented per-sonnel. The committee remains concerned, however, that a lack of professional flexibility in the civilian work force limits the ability of the Department of Defense and the military services to attract and retain highly trained mid-level career professionals. Family planning and an individual’s desire to further their education are two frequently cited reasons why professionals seek more flexible work schedules. The committee notes numerous private sector organizations started providing increased work flexibility to their employees, pro-viding incentives that lure the skilled workforce away from the DoD and the services. Therefore, in order to preserve and enhance the DoD’s civilian workforce the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military de-partments, to provide a briefing by January 31st, 2019 that identi-fies current policies that allow work-share, job-share, part-time, tele-work, and other flexibilities currently offered by the Depart-ment for civilian employees. The briefing should identify the fre-quency with which these policies are used by each pay-band and career-field, whether certain career-fields have been exempted from certain flexibility programs and the justification for exemption, the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

193 number of employees who have been denied opportunities to do work-share, job-share, part-time work, or tele-work, and how many of these employees, as a result, have left the federal government. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 1101—Direct Hire Authority for the Department of Defense for Certain Competitive Service Positions This section would amend chapter 99 of title 5, United States Code, by adding a new section that would provide the Secretary of Defense authority to expedite hiring of civilian personnel into posi-tions involving maintenance, depot maintenance, cybersecurity, ac-quisition, and science, technology, and engineering. This authority would expire on September 30, 2025. Section 1102—Modification of Direct Hire Authority for the Depart-ment of Defense for Post-Secondary Students and Recent Grad-uates This section would amend chapter 99 of title 5, United States Code, by adding a new section that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to recruit and hire recent graduates into competitive po-sitions in the Department of Defense through September 30, 2025. This section would also repeal the more limited authority provided by section 1106 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fis-cal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). Section 1103—Extension of Overtime Rate Authority for Depart-ment of the Navy Employees Performing Work Aboard or Dock-side in Support of the Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier Forward Deployed in Japan This section would amend section 5542 of title 5, United States Code, to extend until September 30, 2021, the authority of the Sec-retary of the Navy to pay overtime rates to civilian employees per-forming temporary duty in Japan in support of the forward de-ployed nuclear aircraft carrier. Section 1104—One-Year Extension and Expansion of Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limi-tation on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas This section would amend section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to extend the authority to waive the annual limita-tion on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian employees working overseas until September 30, 2019. This section would also restrict the waiver limitation to the pay periods applicable, rather than the entire calendar year. Section 1105—Appointment of Retired Members of the Armed Forces to Positions in or Under the Department of Defense This section would provide the Secretary of Defense temporary authority to appoint retired members of the Armed Forces to Fed-eral civilian positions within the Department of Defense imme-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

194 diately upon retirement for certain categories of positions. This sec-tion would provide this authority to the Secretary for 5 years. Section 1106—Extension of Authority to Conduct Telework Travel Expenses Test Programs This section would amend section 5711 of title 5, United States Code, to extend the authority of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to conduct a test telework program until December 31, 2020. Section 1107—Personnel Demonstration Projects This section would amend section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, to deem that demonstration projects conducted under this authority lasting more than 10 years shall not count against the limit of 10 such projects ongoing at any time. Section 1108—Expanded Flexibility in Selecting Candidates From Referral Lists This section would amend subchapter I of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, to provide Federal agencies flexibility in set-ting the minimum number of candidates who must be considered on a referral list for each vacancy by amending sections 3317, 3318, and 3319 of such title. Section 1109—Temporary and Term Appointments in the Competitive Service This section would amend subchapter I of chapter 31 of title 5, United States Code, by adding a new section that would authorize the heads of Federal agencies to hire civilian personnel through temporary and term appointments. This section would also permit an agency head to make noncompetitive hires for up to 18 months to meet a critical need. TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Carrier Presence in the Middle East The committee recognizes the importance of maintaining an air-craft carrier strike group in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran, support ongoing missions in the Republic of Iraq, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, provide assurance to regional partners, and maintain the capacity to flexi-bly respond to a variety of crises across the volatile region. The Navy currently struggles to meet combatant commander presence requirements in CENTCOM and a recent gap in carrier presence there temporarily limited CENTCOM’s capacity to address these security challenges. In an effort to more quickly reach the require-ment for 12 aircraft carriers identified in the most recent Force Structure Assessment and to achieve greater cost savings, the com-mittee authorized an acceleration of the next Ford-class aircraft VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

195 carrier designated CVN–81 in fiscal year 2019. The committee also recommends that the Navy assess options to extend the service life of USS Nimitz (CVN 68) to mitigate potential gaps, which could af-fect CENTCOM’s regional force presence. Casualty Evacuation in U.S. Africa Command Area of Operations Given the vast distances and austere conditions affecting mobil-ity on the African continent, the committee recognizes that per-sonnel recovery and casualty evacuation are critical enablers to U.S. Africa Command’s (AFRICOM’s) conduct of operations. The committee is concerned, however, that current funding for con-tractor-owned, contractor-operated casualty evacuation capabilities is currently insufficient to support requirements. Therefore, the funding table in division D would authorize an additional $15.0 million for contractor-owned, contractor-operated casualty evacu-ation capability in AFRICOM’s area of operations. Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa The committee has long been concerned about U.S. Africa Com-mand (AFRICOM) Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa’s (CJTF–HOA) ability to execute assigned missions and taskings, as evidenced by section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), which required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to monitor and evaluate the impact of CJTF–HOA’s activities to counter violent extremism in Africa and provide a report to Con-gress. The committee continues to be concerned that CJTF–HOA’s orga-nizational structure, resourcing, command relationships, and lack of clearly defined role, responsibility, and authority have led to sub-optimal performance in executing its assigned missions as an oper-ational headquarters and ensuring unified action in the region. The committee acknowledges that as the only major element of AFRICOM located on the continent, there may be value in main-taining and better enabling CJTF–HOA to synchronize, facilitate, and oversee its assigned missions. The committee notes, however, that options other than a joint task force may be more effective in accomplishing these missions. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the missions of CJTF–HOA and the operational environ-ment to determine whether a joint task force provides the most ef-fective headquarters option for command and control of operations. Further, the committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 31, 2018, on the results of the evaluation. The briefing shall in-clude: (1) an evaluation of the costs and benefits of maintaining a per-manent U.S. military presence in East Africa, and the potential lo-cations for such presence; (2) an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of main-taining a combined joint task force structure to fulfill assigned mis-sions and taskings;

196 (3) the range of headquarters options available for command and control of operations in East Africa and the advantages and dis-advantages of each option; (4) recommendations for the most effective headquarters struc-ture, command relationships, and assignment of missions to im-prove the command and control of operations and to ensure unified action in East Africa; and (5) any other matter the Secretary determines to be appropriate. Coordinating Efforts To Counter the Malign Activities of the Peo-ple’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation Across Com-batant Commands The committee is concerned about the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation’s malign influence and activities that extend across all geographical regions and supports the Depart-ment’s efforts to increase coordination across combatant commands in countering those activities. The committee believes that China and Russia’s influence campaigns, economic investment and infra-structure, and security presence throughout the Indo-Pacific, Cen-tral Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America, have national secu-rity implications for the United States and its allies and partners. Therefore, the committee encourages all combatant commands to coordinate their respective efforts and use all appropriate authori-ties to include security cooperation activities, foreign military sales, and other equipment transfers to counter China and Russia’s ac-tivities and to develop the capabilities of United States allies and partners. The committee notes that the combatant commands should align their efforts in accordance with section 1637 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), as appropriate. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on the actions the combatant commands are taking to in-crease coordination and counter the activities posed by China and Russia. Department of Defense Inspector General Audit of Foreign Military Sales An efficient, thorough, and effective Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process is vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security, and contributes to the health of the U.S. defense industrial base. The committee is aware, however, of concerns raised by U.S. mili-tary leaders, the defense industry, and foreign partners that the FMS process is slow, cumbersome, and overly complicated. Therefore, the committee directs the Inspector General of the De-partment of Defense to conduct an audit regarding Department of Defense implementation of FMS programs and, upon completion of the audit, to submit a final report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. The committee further directs the Inspector General to meet with the House Com-mittee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Af-fairs not later than June 30, 2018, to scope the audit fully. Addi-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

197 tionally, the committee directs the Inspector General to provide an interim briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs not later than November 30, 2018, on the manner that it intends to conduct such audit. Foreign Military Sales A key element of the 2018 National Defense Strategy is to ‘‘strengthen alliances and attract new partners.’’ The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is making progress insti-tuting the security cooperation reforms contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 328). The committee remains concerned, however, that the execu-tion of foreign military sales (FMS) is not coordinated holistically across the Department to prioritize resources and effort in support of U.S. national security objectives and the defense industrial base. Consequently, acquisition decisions continue to be made in a stovepiped manner and without sufficient regard for the role of FMS. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by October 31, 2018, on the procedures instituted by the Department to integrate FMS and other security cooperation activities into the planning process for defense acquisition. Additionally, the committee notes that there are separate and disparate efforts across the Department that develop, negotiate, and implement foreign military sales for missile defense capability. This often leads to foreign partners not being provided price and availability for all potential systems that could meet their require-ments, and the best solution to benefit both the partner nation and overall Department interests. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Di-rector of the Missile Defense Agency, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Army, to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services by November 30, 2018, on options to im-prove, consolidate, and streamline missile defense foreign military sales across the Department. Further, the committee believes that production of additional for-eign military sales variants may help mitigate risk to the supplier base and overall production capacity for precision guided muni-tions. Elsewhere in this report the committee encourages the Sec-retary of Defense to ensure that the AIM–120 advanced medium- range air-to-air missiles production line is kept at or near full ca-pacity whenever possible, either by increasing production to fill U.S. military requirements or by supplementing production for the U.S. military with higher FMS production. Improved Coordination of Activities in Africa With International Partners The committee is aware that international partners such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, Japan, and the United Arab Emirates, plus multinational organizations such as the European Union and African Union, and many others, conduct programs to build partner capacity in Africa. The committee is concerned that U.S. programs may be duplicative VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

198 or in conflict with international partners’ activities, or that gaps in capabilities are unaddressed. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on For-eign Affairs by October 31, 2018, on the steps being taken to co-ordinate security cooperation activities in Africa with international partners. International Armaments Cooperation The committee appreciates that international armaments co-operation (IAC) involves cooperative research, development, test, and evaluation of defense technologies, systems, or equipment; joint production and follow-on support of defense articles or equip-ment; and procurement of foreign technology, equipment, systems or logistics support. The committee further appreciates that the Of-fice of the Director of International Cooperation and the IAC Direc-torate are charged with performing managerial roles with respect to these important functions. However, the committee questions whether IAC is sufficiently utilized for strategic purposes and ques-tions whether the Office of the Director of International Coopera-tion and the IAC Directorate are optimally situated to contribute to long-term policy making and strategic oversight regarding De-partment of Defense security cooperation programs. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the status of IAC within the Department of Defense and to consider the merits of realigning the Office of the Director of International Cooperation and the IAC Directorate from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The com-mittee also directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 31, 2018, on IAC, the Office of the Director of International Cooperation, and the IAC Directorate. At a minimum, the briefing shall include the following: (1) a description of the dispositions, missions, roles, and respon-sibilities of all departmental offices with a role in IAC (to include the Office of the Director of International Cooperation, the IAC Di-rectorate, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency); (2) an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the current organizational and operational structures related to IAC (to include the placement of the Office of the Director of International Cooperation and the IAC Directorate); (3) an assessment of the merits of realigning the Office of the Di-rector of International Cooperation or the IAC Directorate to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and (4) a discussion of the steps that have been, or may be, taken by the Department of Defense to improve IAC to achieve strategic ob-jectives. Multilateral Cooperation on the Korean Peninsula The committee supports efforts between United States Forces Korea and the United Nations Command Sending States and cer-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

199 tain countries to augment U.S. forces and forces of the Republic of Korea on the Korean peninsula. The committee is pleased to see cooperation and participation among the United States, South Korea, United Nations Command Sending States, and certain countries in combined defense exer-cises. The committee further believes that these allies and partners can continue to play a vital role in contributing military assets for contingencies and capabilities in the naval and maritime domain as well as participating in training and exercises. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the component commands, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than December 1, 2018, on recommendations to strength-en coordination with liaison components and to broaden such co-operation, including information sharing, training and exercise op-portunities, and integration and planning of multi-national forces into existing arrangements between the United States and South Korea. Naval Mine Countermeasure Capability in the U.S. Central Command’s Area of Operations The committee recognizes the importance of the U.S. Navy’s mine countermeasures (MCM) capability in protecting the free flow of commerce through the Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Bab al Mandeb Strait. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2018, on the MCM platforms that are ca-pable of being readily deployed to U.S. Central Command’s area of operations. This briefing should describe available MCM platforms, the time that would be required to clear relevant sea lanes of the mine threats posed by regional state and non-state actors including the Islamic Republic of Iran, the extent to which MCM training and exercises focus on potential mining contingencies in Middle Eastern waterways, and, if applicable, the extent to which U.S. MCM shortfalls could be covered by partner-country capabilities. Non-Standard Acquisition in Foreign Military Sales The committee is aware that foreign partners are increasingly considering U.S.-made capabilities through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) that are not currently a Department of Defense program of record. For FMS purposes, a non-standard article is one that the Department of Defense does not manage, either because an applica-ble end item has been retired or because it was never purchased for Department components; a non-standard service is one that the Department of Defense does not routinely provide for itself or for purchase. Likewise, the Department’s building partner capacity (BPC) programs include acquisition of non-standard articles and services under defense security cooperation train and equip au-thorities. Consequently, there is an increasing need for the Depart-ment of Defense to provide adequate program-level support so that these systems can be sold to international partners and supported over the life-cycle of the program. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

200 The committee is also aware that the military departments have, on a case-by-case basis, established program offices to support the foreign sale of certain non-standard articles. The committee is con-cerned, however, that these ad hoc efforts do not provide the sup-port necessary to manage foreign partners’ acquisition of non- standard articles and services across the Department of Defense in a holistic manner. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to con-duct a review of the acquisition of non-standard articles and serv-ices for FMS and BPC programs, and to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by October 31, 2018, on the results of the review. The briefing shall include the following with respect to foreign partners’ acquisition of non-standard articles and services through FMS or BPC programs: (1) a description of current processes and procedures; (2) an overview of previous programs, and an assessment of fu-ture opportunities for such programs; (3) the various options the Department of Defense could use to address this issue, including the advantages and disadvantages of each and funding requirements; (4) statutory, regulatory, policy, or funding constraints related to the options in (3); and (5) any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate. Report on New START Treaty The committee notes that the New START Treaty entered into force in 2011 and is set to expire in 2021 but may be extended for a period of an additional five years. U.S. Strategic Command Com-mander General Hyten stated in March 2017 before the House Armed Services Committee that ‘‘I’ve stated for the record in the past, and I’ll state again, that I’m a big supporter of the New START Agreement.’’ In addition, the committee notes that Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence General Weinstein also stated in March 2017 that ‘‘The reason you do a treaty is not to cut forces but to maintain strategic stability among world powers. And the New START Treaty allowed us to maintain [that stability]. I think there is a huge value with what the New START Treaty has provided . . . So I think the New START Trea-ty has been good, been good for us.’’ Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than No-vember 15, 2018, on whether, and if so, the reasons that, the New START Treaty, and the extension of the treaty as of the date of the report, is in the national security interests of the United States. Report on U.S. Casualty Estimates for Armed Conflict With North Korea The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a re-port to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than September 30, 2018, and again 180 days thereafter, on the U.S. casualty estimates for likely scenarios of an armed conflict with

201 North Korea. The reports should be unclassified, but each may con-tain a classified annex. Security and Stability in Venezuela The committee is concerned about the degradation of democratic institutions, security and stability, and human rights violations in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela during the authoritarian rule of President Nicol s Maduro. President Maduro’s leadership tenure has produced economic, political, and security instability in Ven-ezuela. The severe humanitarian crisis unfolding in Venezuela includes inflation exceeding 1,100 percent, massive shortages in food and medical supplies, and a near complete collapse of social services. The committee notes this crisis is directly impacting the Republic of Colombia with an estimated 500,000 Venezuelans seeking refuge there. The committee recognizes that hundreds of thousands more vul-nerable members of the Venezuelan population could potentially migrate to Colombia and other neighboring countries to seek safety and opportunity. This migration could have impacts on stability throughout South America. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense, in close conjunction with other U.S. agencies, to monitor the economic, security, and political situation in Venezuela closely and to con-tinue working with the government of Colombia and other regional partners to assist the Venezuelan refugee population and resolve the crisis. Support to Syrian Women The committee notes the efforts of nongovernmental organiza-tions that have successfully increased the inclusion of Syrian women in local and provincial governance. The committee further notes that women have been instrumental to humanitarian aid ef-forts at the local level in Syria, and have helped keep schools, hos-pitals, and basic services running in their communities. Women serve on local councils, advise local police departments, and are being trained to hold forums and town halls in their communities. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of State to provide the House Armed Services Committees no later than December 1, 2018 a briefing on any ef-forts to support appropriately vetted Syrian opposition forces as de-fined in section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3541) in their efforts to increase the inclusion of women in security and governance processes. Addi-tionally, the briefing shall include any plans to initiate or expand such efforts in the future. Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces The committee notes that the Department of Defense works closely with the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) to provide protected mobility as well as a wide-range of other capabilities based on military requirements, including VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

202 ANDSF priorities as well as the ANDSF’s capability to maintain and sustain such equipment. The committee understands the Com-bined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC–A) con-ducted a tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) optimization study in 2016 in support of the ANDSF with a focus on creating a sustainable, affordable, and effective fleet that would increase combat capability and force protection for occupants. It is unclear to the committee whether this study considered providing excess defense article mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles to the ANDSF. The committee notes there are several thousand MRAP vehicles categorized as Excess Defense Articles (EDA) in the Department’s inventory that could potentially be used to address protected mobil-ity requirements for the ANDSF. The committee is aware the ANDSF are using MRAP vehicles and notes these vehicles provide for increased survivability and offensive power in combat oper-ations. Further, the committee is aware of a recent letter of request by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for 738 MRAP vehicles. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in consultation with the Director, Defense Security Co-operation Agency, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by October 30, 2018, on the cost, operational sur-vivability, and sustainability of EDA MRAP vehicles for the ANDSF, the status of the most recent letter of request for 738 MRAP vehicles for the ANDSF, and whether MRAP vehicles were considered as part of the most recent TWV optimization study con-ducted by CSTC–A. The briefing should also take into account cost, blast protection level, catastrophic losses to date of vehicles and numbers of Afghan soldiers killed in vehicles damaged by impro-vised explosive devices. Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) The committee recognizes the threat posed by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Boko Haram, and ISIS West Africa, and that such threat poses risks to the sta-bilization of countries in West Africa and the Sahel. The committee emphasizes that countering terrorism throughout Western Africa and the Sahel requires enhancing regional border security, tracking illicit financial flows, building law enforcement capacity, and strengthening the rule of law. In order to promote stable and strong institutions throughout Western Africa and the Sahel, a whole of government approach is called for, leveraging State Department-led diplomatic efforts, military-to-military rela-tionships developed and led by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), and development projects carried out by the U.S. Agency for Inter-national Development (USAID). The Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) de-veloped in 2005 by the Department of Defense (AFRICOM), De-partment of State, and USAID was created to support national and regional institutions in the region working with regional govern-ments and European partners bordering the Mediterranean. The committee encourages the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership to continue with regular interagency coordination and engagement with regional partners and allies. The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

203 the House Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs by March 1, 2019 on the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Partnership including any activities or partner engagement related to military, counter-terrorism, and law-enforcement capacity-building, as well as public diplomacy and information operations. U.S. Military Education and Training Locations The committee recognizes the importance of U.S. military leader-ship in advancing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s mission to guarantee freedom and security in the alliance and around the world. As the 75th anniversary of D-Day and the allied invasion of Normandy, France, approaches, the committee notes the signifi-cance of this event in history. As such, the committee believes the Cotentin Peninsula could serve as a potential location for Depart-ment of Defense activities to grow global partnerships and alli-ances. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to sub-mit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2018, on the feasibility (including cost and availability of any suit-able locations for potential activities) of activities to grow global partnerships and alliances on the Cotentin Peninsula prior to the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion in June 2019. Western Hemisphere Region Report on Strategy To Increase Engagement With Region It is the sense of Congress that the security, stability, and pros-perity of the Western Hemisphere region are vital to the national interests of the United States. The United States has a military ca-pability in the Western Hemisphere region that builds goodwill and is able to project power, build partner capacity, deter acts of ag-gression, and respond, if necessary, to natural disasters, regional threats or to threats to the national security of the United States by the activities of actors, such as Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, transnational criminal organizations, or terrorist organiza-tions in the region. The Committee believes continuing efforts by the Department of Defense to increase investments in the Western Hemisphere are necessary to build and maintain a robust United States commitment to the region. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Rela-tions of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives by April 1, 2019, that contains a strategy on effective U.S. defense engagement with the Western Hemi-sphere region, a plan to implement that strategy, and any addi-tional funding requirements to implement such strategy. The strat-egy shall address each of the following: (1) The security challenges, including threats, emanating from the Western Hemisphere region, including from natural disasters, and any capability gaps in United States defense posture to the re-gion; (2) The security threats to the United States or to its interests in the Western Hemisphere region from the engagement of Iran, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

204 China, Russia, and North Korea in the region, with a specific focus on Iran’s engagement in the Tri-Border region of South America, Bolivia, and Venezuela and Russian engagement in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela; (3) The counterintelligence threats to the United States from Cuba and the role of Cuba in supporting the Venezuelan govern-ment; (4) The threats to the United States from transregional and transnational threat networks, including in drug trafficking, illegal mining, deforestation, human trafficking, and other illicit activities; (5) The threats to the United States from the links of the Ven-ezuelan government with drug trafficking and transnational crimi-nal organizations and corrupt government actors in the region; (6) Department of Defense plans, force posture, capabilities, and resources to address any gaps in intelligence, surveillance, recon-naissance, or counter-intelligence capabilities in the region; and (7) The allies, partners, and other countries in the region that the Defense Department has prioritized for increased cooperation and a description of the areas of proposed increased cooperation. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—ASSISTANCE ANDTRAININGSection 1201—Report on the Use of Security Cooperation Authorities This section would express the sense of Congress that the Sec-retary of Defense should use appropriate security cooperation au-thorities to counter the malign influence campaigns that are di-rected at allies and partners and that pose a significant threat to the United States. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to include a report on funding for this purpose with the consolidated budget materials for security cooperation required by section 381 of title 10, United States Code, in fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2025. The committee recognizes that Department of Defense programs aimed at building partner capacity, such as those authorized under section 333(a) of title 10, United States Code, have largely focused on building counterterrorism capabilities in allies and partners. However, with the security cooperation reforms contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) and the evolving security environment, the com-mittee urges the Department to develop capabilities with key allies and partners that will enable them to counter and mitigate the im-pact of malign influence campaigns by competitors or adversaries. Section 1202—Clarification of Authority To Waive Certain Expenses for Activities of the Regional Centers for Security Studies This section would amend section 342 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that travel, transportation, and subsistence ex-penses are included among the costs of activities of the Regional Centers eligible for waiver of reimbursement. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

205 Section 1203—NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide funds for fiscal year 2019 for the purposes of supporting the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence, and would direct the Secretary of Defense to assign executive agent responsibilities to an appropriate organization within the Department of Defense. Section 1204—NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide funds for fiscal year 2019 for the purposes of supporting the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence, and would direct the Secretary of Defense to assign executive agent responsibilities to an appropriate organization within the Department of Defense. Section 1205—Participation in and Support of the Inter-American Defense College This section would make permanent the authority for U.S. par-ticipation in and support of the Inter-American Defense College and would transfer such authority to chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code. This section would further require that Department of Defense participation in, and host nation support of, the Inter- American Defense College shall be in accordance with a memo-randum of understanding between the Department and the Inter- American Defense Board, with Secretary of State concurrence, and that such memorandum of understanding shall provide details of any cost-sharing or funding arrangements, a curriculum, and a plan for academic program development. Section 1206—Increase in Cost Limitation for Small Scale Construction Related to Security Cooperation This section would increase the limitation on small scale con-struction related to security cooperation from $0.75 million to $2.0 million. Section 1207—Report on Security Cooperation With Haiti This section would require the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to submit a report on co-operation between the Department of Defense and the Government of the Republic of Haiti. Section 1208—Review and Report on Processes and Procedures Used to Carry Out Section 362 of Title 10, United States Code This section would require the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to conduct a review of the processes and procedures used to carry out section 362 of title 10, United States Code, and submit a report to the appropriate con-gressional committees on such review. This section would also make conforming amendments to section 362 and to section 1206 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291).

206 SUBTITLEB—MATTERSRELATING TOAFGHANISTAN ANDPAKISTANSection 1211—Extension of Authority To Transfer Defense Articles and Provide Defense Services to the Military and Security Forces of Afghanistan This section would extend the authority to transfer defense arti-cles being drawn down in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the authority to provide defense services regarding such transfers to the military and security forces of Afghanistan. Section 1212—Extension of Authority for Reimbursement of Cer-tain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States Military Operations This section would extend through December 31, 2019, the au-thority to make Coalition Support Fund (CSF) payments under sec-tion 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). This section would also maintain the limitations enacted in sec-tion 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), which provided that of the funds author-ized for CSF, not more than $700.0 million may be provided to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and of that amount, not more than $350.0 million may be provided until the Secretary of Defense cer-tified that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps against the Haqqani Network. The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, it has fully au-thorized the President’s budget request of $900.0 million for fiscal year 2019 for CSF payments. Section 1213—Extension and Modification of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program This section would extend the Commanders’ Emergency Re-sponse Program through 2020 and would modify the eligibility to include Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. Section 1214—Report on Assistance to Pakistan This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act describing the manner in which the Department provides assistance to the Gov-ernment of Pakistan. SUBTITLEC—MATTERSRELATING TOSYRIA, IRAQ, ANDIRANSection 1221—Extension and Modification of Authority To Provide Assistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria This section would extend the authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. This section would also authorize a funding level of $850.0 million for such support in Iraq. The committee notes that some U.S.-provided equipment has in-advertently fallen into the hands of groups that operate outside of the control of the central Government of the Republic of Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government. The committee urges the De-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

207 partment of Defense to evaluate its current safeguards to ensure that equipment is properly stored and maintained. Section 1222—Extension of Authority To Provide Assistance to the Vetted Syrian Opposition This section would extend and modify section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) by extending the ‘‘Syria train and equip’’ program and the reprogramming re-quirement through December 31, 2019. Further, this section would require the President to submit to the congressional defense committees a plan at least 30 days prior to an initial reprogramming request in fiscal year 2019. The plan would describe the efforts the United States will take to train and build an appropriately vetted force; the nature of the force; the cur-rent effectiveness of the force; the conditions to be met for a deter-mination that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been ade-quately neutralized; the roles and contributions of partner coun-tries; the concept of operations, timelines and types of training, equipment, stipends, sustainment, supplies to be provided by the United States (including measures for accountability); and a de-scription of force posture. Section 1223—Extension and Modification of Authority To Support Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq This section would extend the authority for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I) through December 31, 2019. The com-mittee recognizes that OSC-I will manage U.S. security cooperation with the Republic of Iraq over the long term and expects the De-partment of Defense to ensure, to the extent practicable, that the Government of Iraq is able to sustain and maintain U.S.-provided equipment throughout the lifespan of such equipment. Section 1224—Sense of Congress on Ballistic Missile Cooperation to Counter Iran This section would express the sense of Congress that the Gulf Cooperation Council member countries should take meaningful steps to build an interoperable ballistic missile defense architecture with emphasis on information sharing, including early warning and tracking data, to defend against the Islamic Republic of Iran mis-sile threat. Section 1225—Strategy To Counter Destabilizing Activities of Iran This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, with con-currence of the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a strategy with foreign partners to counter the destabilizing activities of Iran. Under such a strategy, partners and allies would commit to collaborating with the United States on a variety of efforts, in-cluding but not limited to investing in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, mine countermeasures resources, in-tegrated air and missile defense, and cybersecurity; engaging in VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

208 combined planning, defense education, and institution building; and sharing information. Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, on the strategy and the actions taken by partners and allies. Section 1226—Report on Compliance of Iran Under the Chemical Weapons Convention This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consulta-tion with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on For-eign Affairs by February 1, 2019, assessing the extent to which Iran is complying with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Section 1227—Report on Potential Release of Chemical Weapons or Chemical Weapons Precursors From Barzeh Research and Devel-opment Center and Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage and Bunker Facilities in Homs Province of Syria This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the analysis for potential release of chemical weapons or chemical weapon precursors, con-ducted prior to U.S. and partner forces strikes on the Barzeh Re-search and Development Center and the Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage and bunker facilities in Homs province of Syria in April 2018. Section 1228—Report on Cooperation Between Iran and the Russian Federation This provision would require a report each year for the next 5 years on military and security cooperation between the Islamic Re-public of Iran and the Russian Federation, particularly in respect to Syria. The report would further cover Russian and Iranian intel-ligence-sharing, joint naval exercises, joint cooperation on Iran’s space and nuclear programs, Russian cooperation with Hezbollah, and the potential that Iran will adopt Russia’s hybrid warfare model. SUBTITLED—MATTERSRELATING TO THERUSSIANFEDERATIONSection 1231—Prohibition on Availability of Funds Relating to Sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea This section would extend by 1 year the prohibition imposed by section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended by section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2019 funds to implement any activity that recognizes the sov-ereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea. This section would also allow the Secretary of Defense, in concurrence with the Sec-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

209 retary of State, to waive the prohibition if the Secretary determines that doing so would be in the national security interest of the United States and submits a notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Com-mittee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. Section 1232—Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating to Implementation of the Open Skies Treaty The committee is aware that the Department of State’s 2018 arms control compliance report, also known as the ‘‘Report on Ad-herence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments’’, submitted pur-suant to section 2593a of title 22, United States Code, continues to find the Russian Federation in violation of numerous provisions of the Treaty on Open Skies. Consistent with prior National Defense Authorization Acts, the committee believes legislation is appro-priate and required to oversee the implementation of this treaty. This section would prohibit the use of funding authorized in this Act for fiscal year 2019 for the purposes of upgrading or modern-izing certain Treaty on Open Skies systems until such time as the President (or the Secretary of State) is able to certify that the President has imposed treaty violations responses and legal coun-termeasures. This section would also limit the use of funding authorized in this Act or any other Act for fiscal year 2019 for the approval or adoption of any implementing decision in the Open Skies Consult-ative Commission concerning approval of a request by states par-ties to certify infra-red or synthetic aperture radar sensors under the treaty. Such funding would be restricted until: (1) the Secretary of Defense, jointly with the relevant U.S. Gov-ernment officials, submits a certification that an implementing de-cision would not be harmful or detrimental to the national security of the United States, as well as a report on certain matters has been submitted to the appropriate congressional committees; and (2) the President has certified, not later than 90 days prior to a decision taking effect, that Russia is in complete compliance with the treaty, is allowing observation flights over certain specified re-gions, and it has agreed to certain conditions (including the extra-dition of Russian citizens involved in undertaking unlawful activi-ties against the United States incident to the 2016 Presidential election, it has withdrawn from Crimea and ceased support to Rus-sian proxies in Eastern Ukraine, and has ceased all military and financial support for any state that uses or has used against its ci-vilian population any agent or substance banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention). The President would be permitted to waive the limitation subject to certain conditions. The section would also permit the Secretary to cease operation of treaty aircraft for safety of flight. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

210 Section 1233—Comprehensive Response to the Russian Federation’s Material Breach of the INF Treaty This section would state a series of findings concerning Russian Federation violations of the INF Treaty. This section would also state that it is the policy of the United States that Russia has de-feated the object and purpose of the treaty, is in material breach of the treaty, and as a result the U.S. is legally entitled to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part for so long as the Russian Federation continues to be in material breach of the trea-ty. This section would additionally withhold 25 percent of the fund-ing authorized to be appropriated by this Act for Department sup-port to the Executive Office of the President, other than funding re-quired for senior leader communications, until the President cer-tifies that each requirement of section 1290 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) has been met; that the President has notified the appropriate congres-sional committees of the imposition of sanctions pursuant to section 1290 of that Act; and, that the President has submitted the report required by section 1244(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). The committee notes that because the requirements of section 1244(b)(2) of Public Law 115–91 have not been satisfied as of this report, the restriction on $50.0 million in fiscal year 2018 author-ized funding for the Special Mission Area of the Defense Informa-tion Systems Agency remains in place. The committee is aware that the State Department’s 2018 arms control compliance report, also known as the Report on Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Dis-armament Agreements and Commitments, submitted pursuant to section 2593a of title 22, United States Code, continues to find Rus-sia in violation of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate- Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty), specifically the ob-ligations not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched missile with a range capability of 500 kilometers to 5,500 kilo-meters. Each National Defense Authorization Act since fiscal year 2014 has included measures to pressure Russia to return to compli-ance with the treaty and to ensure Russia cannot obtain a military advantage by its violations of the treaty. The committee believes time is running out for Russia to take actions that will allow for the preservation of the treaty. Section 1234—Modification and Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative This section would extend by 2 years section 1250 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114– 92), most recently amended by section 1234 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide security assistance and intelligence support to the Government of Ukraine. This sec-tion would also authorize $250.0 million to carry out this authority in fiscal year 2019. The committee recognizes the essential role played by U.S. and partner assistance in training, advising, and equipping Ukrainian

211 military and security forces, including the invaluable contributions of the National Guard through the State Partnership Program, and urges the Defense Department to fully resource those efforts. As part of these efforts, the committee recognizes the contributions of training activities conducted at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center in Yavoriv, Ukraine, and similar locations. The committee commends the administration for providing defen-sive lethal assistance through Foreign Military Financing in the past year to the Government of Ukraine to support its efforts to protect and defend its territorial integrity. The committee urges the Department to continue to use the Ukraine Security Assistance Ini-tiative (USAI) for assistance to the Government of Ukraine and en-courages the Department to consider USAI as a source of funds for future defensive lethal assistance. Section 1235—Statement of Policy on United States Military Investment in Europe This section would state that it is the policy of the United States to sustain credible deterrence against aggression by the Govern-ment of the Russian Federation. The committee notes section 1273 of the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional de-fense committees detailing a Future Years Defense Program plan for resourcing and planning for the European Deterrence Initiative. Section 1273 also prohibited any further action with respect to sites identified for divestiture, but not yet divested, as part of the Euro-pean Infrastructure Consolidation (EIC) initiative until the report was submitted to the congressional defense committees. As the section 1273 report has not been submitted in compliance with the statutory requirement, the committee believes the limita-tion of the divestiture of sites under the EIC is still in place. Section 1236—Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to Certain Persons Providing Sophisticated Goods, Services, or Technologies for Use in the Production of Major Defense Equipment or Ad-vanced Conventional Weapons This section would require the President to submit a report to the specified congressional committees within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Act; the report would list such persons as are described in section 1290 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). This section would also require the President to submit a report to the specified congressional committees within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Act; the report would provide information related to the supply chains for Russian arms sales programs. The section would require the imposition of sanctions with re-spect to persons providing specified support to Russian industry, with a focus on targeting Russia’s defense industry supply chain, involved with developing or producing major defense equipment or advanced conventional weapons. The sanctions available to the President would include, denial of sales or defense articles and services; licenses for export of an item on the United States Muni-tions List; or, exports controlled for national security under the Ex-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

212 port Administration Regulations. It would also contain an en-hanced sanction for governments of state-sponsors of terrorism that obtain such equipment from Russia. The President would be au-thorized to waive the imposition of sanctions with respect to the new sanctions provided in this section in certain specified cir-cumstances. This section would also amend section 231 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (Public Law 115–44), by providing an authority to suspend the imposition of sanctions under that Act for 180-day periods in the event a person dem-onstrates that they are directly supporting U.S. national security objectives and have taken specified steps, including terminating de-fense relationships with Russia, or reducing reliance upon the Rus-sian defense or intelligence sectors. Finally, all provisions or amendments made by this section would expire in 5 years. Section 1237—Extension of Limitation on Military Cooperation Between the United States and the Russian Federation This section would extend for 1-year section 1232(a) of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), as most recently amended by section 1231 of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). This section would limit the use of fiscal year 2019 funds for bilateral military-to-military cooperation between the Govern-ment of the United States and the Russian Federation until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, provides a certification to appropriate congressional committees re-lating to certain actions by Russia. This section would also allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the limitation under certain con-ditions. Section 1238—Sense of Congress Regarding Russia’s Violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention This section would express the sense of Congress that the Rus-sian Federation is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Conven-tion. Section 1239—United States Actions Regarding Material Breach of INF Treaty by the Russian Federation This section would provide that, unless the President certifies to the specified congressional committees that the Russian Federation has returned to full and verifiable compliance with the INF Treaty within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act, the prohibi-tions set forth in Article VI of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty would no longer be binding upon the United States as a matter of U.S. law. Section 1240—Limitation on Availability of Funds To Extend the Implementation of the New START Treaty This section would limit the expenditure of funds for the Depart-ment of Defense to extend the implementation of the New START Treaty unless and until the President certifies that the President VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

213 has raised the issue of certain new Russian nuclear weapons sys-tems under Article V of the New START Treaty and that the Rus-sian Federation has responded in writing to the United States as to whether they will agree to declare such nuclear weapons sys-tems pursuant to the Treaty. The President would be required to notify the specified congressional committees on whether the Rus-sian position threatens the viability of the New START Treaty or requires political, economic, or military response by the United States. SUBTITLEE—MATTERSRELATING TO THEINDO-PACIFICREGIONSection 1251—Support for Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative This section would express the sense of Congress in support of the Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative to increase and enhance U.S. force posture; improve military and defense infrastructure, basing, and logistics; and increase bilateral and multilateral training and exercises with allies and partner nations. This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a requirement and resource plan to the congressional defense com-mittees by March 1, 2019, that includes an analysis of the chal-lenges faced by the United States to meet the objectives and activi-ties outlined in the Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative and the re-source requirements needed through fiscal year 2024 to address such challenges. This section also would require the Secretary to submit budget materials in support of the budget of the President for fiscal year 2020. Section 1252—United States Strategy on China This section would require the President to issue a strategy on the United States’ whole-of-government approach to safeguard U.S. interests against Chinese industrial acquisitions, political influ-ence, and regional and global military capabilities and presence that have defense and security implications for the United States and its allies and partners. The strategy and recommendations for implementation would be required to be submitted to the appro-priate congressional committees as a written report not later than March 1, 2019. Section 1253—Strengthening Taiwan’s Force Readiness This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment, in consultation with appropriate coun-terparts of Taiwan, on ways to enhance and reform Taiwan’s mili-tary forces, particularly Taiwan’s reserve forces. The assessment would also require the development of recommendations to strengthen bilateral cooperation and improve Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities. The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Sec-retary of State, would be required to submit a report on the assess-ment and a list of recommendations and planned actions to the ap-propriate congressional committees not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

214 Section 1254—Modification, Redesignation, and Extension of Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative This section would modify the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative by amending the name to the Indo-Pacific Maritime Secu-rity Initiative. It would include India as a covered country and allow for the inclusion of additional countries in the Indo-Pacific re-gion if the Secretary of Defense, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, determines and certifies to the appropriate committees of Congress that it is important for increasing maritime security and maritime domain awareness. This section would also extend the authority by 3 years from September 30, 2020, to September 30, 2023. Section 1255—Missile Defense Exercises in the Indo-Pacific Region With United States Regional Allies and Partners This section would express the sense of Congress that the United States should continue to develop and deploy robust missile defense in the Indo-Pacific region. This section would also express that the United States should increase coordination, conduct bilateral and multilateral missile defense exercises, and increase the capacity and integration of missile defense systems with allies and partners to move toward a more interoperable and integrated missile de-fense architecture. This section would also state that the Secretary of Defense may conduct missile defense exercises in the Indo-Pacific region with U.S. regional allies and partners to improve interoperability. Finally, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on the matters contained in subsection (c) not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1256—Quadrilateral Cooperation and Exercise This section would express the sense of Congress on supporting quadrilateral cooperation among the United States, Japan, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Republic of India, and others as appropriate. This section would also state that the Secretary of Defense may conduct a quadrilateral naval military exercise and it would re-quire the Secretary to provide a briefing to the congressional de-fense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen-ate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep-resentatives on matters contained in this section not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1257—Name of United States Indo-Pacific Command This section would change the name of ‘‘United States Pacific Command’’ to ‘‘United States Indo-Pacific Command’’ beginning in January 1, 2020. This section also would make several conforming amendments pursuant to the name change. The committee notes that changing the name from ‘‘United States Pacific Command’’ to ‘‘United States Indo-Pacific Command’’ VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

215 may involve some necessary administrative expenditures. The com-mittee believes the Department of Defense should be prudent and minimize such costs to the extent practicable. Section 1258—Requirement for Critical Languages and Expertise in Chinese, Korean, and Russian This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a plan to address shortfalls in Chinese, Korean, and Russian lan-guage and expertise across the Department of Defense. Specifically, the plan shall provide a near-term and long-term plan for how the Department is building competency in these critical areas and the Secretary of Defense shall submit that plan to the congressional de-fense committees not later than 180 days after the date of the en-actment of this Act. Section 1259—Modification of Report Required Under Enhancing Defense and Security Cooperation With India This section would amend subsection (a)(2) of section 1292 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (114–328) by adding an additional reporting requirement. The new reporting requirement would include a description of the progress on ena-bling agreements between the United States and the Republic of India, any limitations that hinder or slow progress, measures to improve interoperability, and actions India is taking, or the Sec-retary of Defense or the Secretary of State believe India should take, to advance the relationship with the United States. Section 1260—Statement of Policy on Naval Vessel Transfers to Japan This section would express that it shall be the policy of the United States to support maritime defense cooperation with Japan. Section 1261—Report and Public Notification on China’s Military, Maritime, and Air Activities in the Indo-Pacific Region This section would state the sense of Congress that greater transparency of the People’s Republic of China provocative mili-tary, maritime, and air activities in the Indo-Pacific region would aid in raising awareness of these activities, enable regional security partners to more effectively protect their sovereignty and defend their rights under international law, and maintain stability within the region to enable constructive relations with China. This section would also require Secretary of Defense, in consulta-tion with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to submit a report to the appropriate congressional commit-tees on a quarterly basis describing China’s activities in the Indo- Pacific region, and disseminate the report to regional allies and partners and provide public notification, as appropriate. The dis-semination and availability of the report and public notification shall be made in a manner consistent with national security and the protection of classified national security information.

216 Section 1262—Senior Defense Engagement With Taiwan This section would express the sense of Congress that, pursuant to the Taiwan Travel Act, a service secretary or member of the joint chiefs should visit Taiwan for a senior-level defense engage-ment. This section would require a briefing to the congressional de-fense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen-ate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Rep-resentatives on any plans of the Department to carry out senior- level defense engagement. Section 1263—Limitation on Use of Funds To Reduce the Total Number of Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty Who Are Deployed to the Republic of Korea This section would limit the use of funds authorized to be appro-priated by this Act to reduce the number of members of the Armed Forces serving on Active Duty in the Republic of Korea below 22,000 unless the Secretary of Defense first provides certification to the congressional defense committees that such a reduction is in the national security interest of the United States and will not sig-nificantly undermine the security of the United States allies in the region. Section 1264—Enhancing Missile Defense Cooperation With Partners This section would state the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should seek to increase missile defense coordination and cooperation with U.S. partners. This section would amend section 1292 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) as amended by section 1258 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) by including missile de-fense cooperation as a priority of Department of Defense defense cooperation efforts with the Republic of India. SUBTITLEF—OTHERMATTERSSection 1271—Report on Status of the United States Relationship With the Republic of Turkey This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consulta-tion with the Secretary of State, to submit a report on the U.S.- Turkish relationship to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section would also prohibit any action to execute delivery of a foreign military sale for major defense equipment under section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761) to the Republic of Turkey until the required report is delivered to the specified con-gressional committees. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

217 Section 1272—Sense of Congress on Unity of Gulf Cooperation Council Member Countries This section would describe the sense of Congress that the mem-ber countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are important security cooperation partners of the United States, that GCC unity and cohesion is critical to facing the growing threats from the Is-lamic Republic of Iran, and that the timely normalization of diplo-matic, security, and economic relationships is in the best interest of the United States. Section 1273—Report on United States Government Police Training and Equipping Programs for Mexico This section would require the President to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on the Ju-diciary of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2019, on U.S. police training and equipping programs with the United States of Mexico. Section 1274—Authority To Increase Engagement and Military-to- Military Cooperation With Western Balkans Countries This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase engagement and military-to-military cooperation utilizing author-ized programs and activities under chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, for the Western Balkans region including the Republic of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Kosovo, and the Republic of Macedonia. The committee is concerned about long-term stability and secu-rity in the Western Balkans region. Ethnic tensions, economic chal-lenges, and malign outside influences are contributing to the insta-bility of the region. The committee remains concerned about the upcoming elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since the signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995, Bosnia and Herzegovina has main-tained growth in developing democratic institutions and elections. The committee encourages the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to promptly and effectively address their constitu-tional challenges and hold fair and free elections in October 2018. The committee remains deeply concerned over the Russian Fed-eration’s intensifying efforts to assert its influence in the Western Balkans. The committee condemns Russia’s involvement in the at-tempted coup against the Government of the newest member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Montenegro, in Octo-ber 2016. The committee is also concerned about Russian informa-tion operations in the Balkans including propaganda and efforts to highlight lingering ethnic tensions. The committee is encouraged by the strong partnerships that continue to develop in the Western Balkans with the United States. These partnerships are vital to increase security, stability, and prosperity in the region. The committee also encourages European partners and allies to strengthen relationships in the region as well. The committee is hopeful about, and supportive of, the contin-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

218 ued work of many in the region toward goals of integrating into the Euro-Atlantic community, including NATO and the European Union (EU). The continued forward progress by these nations to-ward accession into NATO and the EU provides a stable framework from which to achieve greater stability and security throughout Central Europe. The committee notes that the Department of De-fense should continue to increase military-to-military cooperation and engagements in the region. Section 1275—Technical Corrections Relating to Defense Security Cooperation Statutory Reorganization This section would make technical corrections relating to defense security cooperation statutory reorganization. Section 1276—United States-Israel Countering Unmanned Aerial Systems Cooperation This section would modify section 1279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to au-thorize establishment of a cooperative research and development program with the State of Israel to develop capabilities for coun-tering unmanned aerial systems through modification of the exist-ing memorandum of agreement between the United States and Israel for anti-tunneling defense capabilities or through a new memorandum of agreement. Section 1277—Three-Year Extension of Authorization of Non- Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities This section would modify section 943(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as most recently amended by section 1051(n) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91), au-thorization of non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities, by striking ‘‘2021’’ and inserting ‘‘2024’’. Section 1278—Revision of Statutory References to Former NATO Support Organizations and Related NATO Agreements This section would amend section 2350d of title 10, United States Code, to update the statutory reference to reflect a reorganization of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with respect to the elimination of the NATO Support Organization and the estab-lishment of the NATO Support and Procurement Organization. This section would also amend section 2350d to reflect that NATO supply and logistics support activities may extend to NATO oper-ations outside of Europe. Section 1279—Sense of the Congress Concerning Military-to- Military Dialogues This section would state the sense of Congress regarding the pa-rameters that lead to successful military-to-military dialogues. Section 1280—Modifications to Global Engagement Center This section would modify section 1287 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

219 Nothing in this section would alter the requirements of section 8119 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–141) or any successor provision in an Appropriation Act. Section 1281—Report on Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements This section would amend section 2342 of title 10, United States Code, with a requirement to report on cross-servicing agreements with NATO Allies and other countries. Reporting would include the country, date, text, dollar amount, and an assessment as to wheth-er or not it falls within U.S. national security interests. Section 1282—Prohibition on Provision of Weapons and Other Forms of Support to Certain Organizations This section would prohibit funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available to the Department of De-fense for fiscal year 2019 from being used to provide weapons or any other form of support to certain organizations. Section 1283—Certification and Authority To Terminate Funding for Academic Research Relating to Foreign Talent Programs This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to implement a certification requirement to ensure certain ap-plicants for certain Department of Defense research funding pro-vide the Secretary information concerning whether they have par-ticipated, or are currently participating, in foreign talent or expert recruitment programs of certain countries. The Secretary would be required to implement such certification program not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary would have the authority to terminate the award of Department funds if an applicant or recipient of such funds is unable to provide the required certification. Section 1284—Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia This section would express the sense of Congress regarding the United States support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial in-tegrity as well as support for continued cooperation between the United States and Georgia. Section 1285—Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania This section would express the sense of Congress on U.S. support for the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, and the Repub-lic of Lithuania, including support for their sovereignty, concern over aggressive military actions of the Russian Federation against these nations, and encouragement for further defense cooperation between the United States and these nations. Section 1286—Report on United States Strategy in Yemen This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than Feb-ruary 1, 2019, describing the strategy of the United States Armed Forces with respect to Yemen including a description of the U.S. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

220 Armed Forces activity in Yemen, costs associated with such activ-ity, key objectives of such activity, indicators of effectiveness, how current efforts align with such objectives, the estimated annual re-sources required through fiscal year 2022 to achieve such objec-tives, the applicable legal authorities, and any other matters the Secretary deems relevant. Section 1287—Report on Hizballah This section would require the President to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Com-mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a report on Hizballah no later than 90 days after the enactment of this act. The report would include accounting of Hizballah’s known rocket arsenal, an evaluation of the impact of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), an evaluation of Hizballah’s capabilities, a de-scription of routes used by Hizballah to procure weapons illegally, an estimate of entities that support Hizballah’s network, an assess-ment of Hizballah’s involvement in regional conflicts, and an as-sessment of Hizballah’s fundraising in territories where UNIFIL operates. TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Future of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program The committee notes the successful history of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, including the pivotal role it played in securing former Soviet Union nuclear material and delivery platforms, the destruction of Russian and Syrian chemical weapons, and the securing of sensitive biological laboratories around the world. In response to an evolving threat landscape, Congress has provided modifications to the original program to ad-dress current requirements for threat reduction and the prolifera-tion of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by state and non-state actors around the globe. The committee is aware that additional opportunities may exist for enhanced cooperation with allies and partners to address emerging proliferation concerns and WMD threats, such as those on the Korean Peninsula. The committee notes, however, that interagency coordination, expeditious project approval, prioritization, measuring program effectiveness, and policy gaps continue to pose challenges to effective and efficient utilization of CTR by the Department of Defense, despite efforts for improve-ment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by De-cember 1, 2018, on how to strengthen the CTR program so that it may be better leveraged for emerging threat reduction and pro-liferation concerns in an efficient and expeditious manner.

221 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 1301—Funding Allocations This section would allocate specific funding amounts for each program under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Re-duction (CTR) Program from within the overall $335.2 million that the committee would authorize for the CTR Program. The alloca-tion under this section reflects the amount of the budget request for fiscal year 2019. Section 1302—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds This section would specify that funds authorized to be appro-priated to the Department of Defense for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, established under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Act (50 U.S.C. 3711), would be avail-able for obligation in fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021. TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—MILITARYPROGRAMSSection 1401—Working Capital Funds This section would authorize appropriations for Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1402—Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the levels identified in sec-tion 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1403—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide This section would authorize appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1404—Defense Inspector General This section would authorize appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. Section 1405—Defense Health Program This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

222 Section 1406—National Defense Sealift Fund This section would authorize appropriations for the National De-fense Sealift Fund at the levels identified in section 4501 of divi-sion D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—OTHERMATTERSSection 1411—Authority for Transfer of Funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Dem-onstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Cen-ter, Illinois This section would authorize the transfer of funds from the De-partment of Defense to the Joint Department of Defense-Depart-ment of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund es-tablished by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). Section 1412—Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home This section authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2019 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. Section 1413—Quarterly Briefing on Progress of Chemical Demilitarization Program This section would modify section 1521 of title 50, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide quarterly brief-ings to the congressional defense committees on the progress of the chemical demilitarization program, including contractor cost and schedule performance, destruction progress, and any other relevant information until stockpile destruction is complete. This section would also eliminate the semiannual written reports required in the section referenced above. TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL AP-PROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Cargo Inspections To Counter Vehicle Borne 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, bombmaking materials, and illicit goods; and is proven safe for humans, animals, and food products. The Committee en-courages the Army to continue with the current testing program and supports efforts to deploy the system at a major US military VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

223 facility. Further, the Committee requests a briefing 60 days after the enactment of this bill 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. National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) contained no funding for a National Guard and Reserve Component equipment account. Elsewhere as reflected in division D of this Act, the committee notes that the base budget request contained $3.4 billion for procurement of National Guard and Reserve Component equipment and $219.9 million in the OCO request for Army Na-tional Guard and Army Reserve other procurement programs. The committee remains concerned about the availability of equip-ment needed to sustain and modernize the National Guard and Re-serve Components as an operational reserve and for their domestic support missions. The committee notes that National Guard and Reserve Components are often reliant upon overused and outdated equipment, creating a widening capability gap with the Active Component, and have been unable to maintain pace with rapid technological change. The committee believes additional funds are required to address identified equipment shortfalls and improve compatibility with Active Components. The committee expects these funds to be used for the purposes of, but not limited to, the procurement of rotorcraft; avionic and radar upgrades for legacy strike fighter aircraft to include Navy Reserve F–18 strike fighters; wheeled and tracked combat vehicles; tactical wheeled vehicles; ammunition; small arms; tactical radios (to include single channel ground and airborne radio systems); UH–72A Lakota survivability upgrades; UH–60 disaster response equipment, such as rescue hoists, water buckets, and radios; non-system training devices; ve-hicle convoy operations trainers; unstabilized gunnery trainers and virtual convoy operations trainers; sense and avoid system up-grades for unmanned air systems; and explosive ordnance disposal man-portable robots & lightweight X-ray systems and other un-funded procurement items for the National Guard and Reserve Components. The committee recommends additional funding for a National Guard and Reserve Component equipment account within the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. The committee also recommends $3.4 billion, the full amount of the base budget request, for National Guard and Reserve Component equipment and also recommends $219.9 million in the OCO request for Army National Guard and Army Reserve. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—AUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONSSection 1501—Purpose of Certain Authorizations of Appropriations This section would establish the purpose of this title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to amounts other-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

224 wise authorized in this Act, to provide for additional authorization of funds due to overseas contingency operations and other addi-tional funding requirements. Section 1502—Procurement This section would authorize additional appropriations for pro-curement at the levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. Section 1503—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation This section would authorize additional appropriations for re-search, development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act. Section 1504—Operation and Maintenance This section would authorize additional appropriations for oper-ation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. Section 1505—Military Personnel This section would authorize additional appropriations for mili-tary personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. Section 1506—Working Capital Funds This section would authorize additional appropriations for De-fense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Section 1507—Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide This section would authorize additional appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide, at the lev-els identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Section 1508—Defense Inspector General This section would authorize additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. Section 1509—Defense Health Program This section would authorize additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—FINANCIALMATTERSSection 1511—Treatment as Additional Authorizations This section would state that amounts authorized to be appro-priated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise author-ized to be appropriated by this Act. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

225 Section 1512—Special Transfer Authority This section would authorize the transfer of up to $4.5 billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in this title among the accounts in this title. SUBTITLEC—LIMITATIONS, REPORTS, ANDOTHERMATTERSSection 1521—Afghanistan Security Forces Fund This section would extend the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund through December 31, 2019. This section would also set a goal of using $18.0 million to support, to the extent practicable, the efforts of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to pro-mote the recruitment, training, and integration of Afghan women into the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces and as secu-rity personnel for future elections. This section would also require an assessment of the Government of Afghanistan’s ability to manage, employ, and sustain equipment divested under the Afghan Security Forces Fund; if the results of said assessment are unfavorable, the Secretary of Defense, in con-sultation with the Secretary of State, would be authorized to with-hold assistance under the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. Section 1522—Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund This section would amend subsections (b) and (c) of section 1514 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to extend the use and transfer au-thority for the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund through fiscal year 2019. This section would also extend the authority for inter-diction of improvised explosive device precursor chemicals to De-cember 31, 2019. This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2019, a plan to transition funding for the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund from Overseas Con-tingency Operations to the base budget. TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST SPACEACTIVITIESBriefing on Deployed Satellite Communications Terminals The committee notes that currently deployed satellite commu-nications terminals may not meet the performance, the agility, timeliness, and weight requirements needed to provide secure sat-ellite communications to naval and expeditionary forces. The com-mittee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2018, on the current validated requirements for the terminals and a plan, in-cluding applicability, operational capability and cost, for quickly fielding commercially available, secure, lightweight, satellite com-

226 munications terminals, equipped with rapidly deployable antennas, in support of warfighter operations. Briefing on Supply Chain for In-Space Propulsion Thrusters The committee is aware that the Department of Defense and its suppliers rely on U.S., allied, and non-allied manufacturers for pro-curement of in-space propulsion thrusters. These thrusters are used on critical military satellites and the Committee is concerned that the presence of Russian origin thrusters on these satellites may constitute a security risk, particularly as the Department of Defense shifts towards the use of commercial off the shelf sat-ellites. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing on the supply chain for in-space propulsion thrusters, whether the presence of allied or non-allied thrusters in-creases risk, and if so how, options to mitigate any identified risks, and the cost implications of relying solely on U.S. sources to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2019. Commercial Satellite Imagery The committee continues to support the National Geospatial-In-telligence Agency’s (NGA) continued acquisition of commercial sat-ellite imagery in support of global geospatial-intelligence needs. The committee is also aware that NGA, working with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), is developing a joint transition plan to transfer commercial imagery pixel acquisition from NGA to NRO in fiscal year 2019, and expects continued focus and leveraging of these commercial capabilities to add to U.S. imagery capacity and capabilities. As this transition occurs, the committee believes it is essential to maintain continuity of operation, quality of service, cost-effective services, and capability for the warfighter and other user commu-nities. Acquisition of commercial imagery should contract with several providers to leverage U.S. industry providers of global, high-resolu-tion, and cost-effective services, with high revisit rates, and reliable performance including those that have demonstrated proven capa-bility and those that are rapidly emerging within industry. Com-mercial synthetic aperture radar imagery can also provide day, night, and all-weather imagery in highly cloud covered regions. The committee directs the NGA Director and the NRO Director to jointly provide a briefing to the congressional defense commit-tees and the congressional intelligence committees by August 1, 2018, on agency plans for the transition from NGA to NRO, and planned funding beyond fiscal year 2019, and on an open and fair competitive acquisition process to leverage industry capabilities, in-cluding but not limited to plans following the EnhancedView con-tract. Commercial Space Situational Awareness Capabilities The committee continues to be concerned with the direction of the multiple programs seeking to address space situational aware-ness (SSA) requirements, including Joint Space Operations Center Mission System, the Enterprise Space Battle Management Com-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

227 mand and Control System, and the SSA Operations at the National Space Defense Center. The committee expects the Air Force to operationalize existing best of breed commercial capabilities to meet warfighter requirements. The committee supports the efforts being undertaken by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office to develop common data standards and process commercial data to augment Department of Defense capabilities. The develop-ment of common data standards will be important to ensuring the broader multi-domain command and control efforts that are being undertaken within the Air Force. Criteria for Launch Service Agreement Down-Select The committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force plans to make an initial down-select decision to three potential Expendable Evolved Launch Vehicle (EELV) launch providers for assured ac-cess to space in the summer of 2018, and plans to make a final award for launch service procurement contracts by the end of fiscal year 2019. The committee is aware that full-scale flight tests of new space launch vehicles may not occur until after this award is made. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2018, on the criteria and sufficiency of test data that the Air Force will use to make the final launch service agreement awards by the end of fiscal year 2019, potentially ahead of fully integrated flight tests. The briefing should also include cri-teria and incentives that the Air Force will use to ensure that the contractors selected maintain schedule and fidelity in line with their contract bids. GPS Backup Demonstration The committee continues to support the demonstration of backup and complementary positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities of the Global Positioning System (GPS) as required by section 1606 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Transportation, and Secretary of Homeland Security to continue to work together to jointly develop and imple-ment a plan for carrying out this backup GPS capability dem-onstration in 2019 and 2020. Further, the committee expects the Secretaries to submit the final report next year as required by Pub-lic Law 115–91. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by De-cember 1, 2018, on the progress being made on this demonstration. Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization The committee is aware that the Air Force’s launch support and modernization program required by section 1609 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 91) covers the Eastern and Western Ranges, but does not include U.S. spaceports. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

228 than September 14, 2018, on the potential benefits of including in this program U.S. spaceports and ranges that actively support na-tional security missions, including benefits such as increasing resil-ience and rapid launch capability, and the estimated costs of in-cluding them. Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Mission Enhancement The committee is interested in the cost-effective development of advanced launch vehicle upper stages to be used for defense of our space assets. Advanced upper stages could increase the operational flexibility and on-orbit reusability of the holistic launch system while also allowing for greater delivery of mass to orbit. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by December 3, 2018, on the benefits, risks, costs, and operational opportunities for next generation upper stage technology. The briefing should exam-ine as appropriate on-orbit reusability, cryogenic refueling, multiple engine restarts, and power generation to support secondary pay-loads that can support space resiliency. Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared Satellites The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to improve the affordability, resiliency, and agility of Overhead Per-sistent Infrared Satellite systems that can be rapidly fielded as the battlespace changes. As adversaries challenge this capability, the Department must respond with technology upgrades in a rapid fashion to counter the threat by pursuing affordable systems with lifetimes under 7 years; disaggregated strategic missile warning, missile defense tracking, and battlespace awareness missions; smaller bus sizes; resilient mission architectures that can survive a loss of system nodes/satellites and still provide primary mission capability through complementary mission capabilities and both on-orbit and ground spares with the ability to rapidly reconstitute. The committee believes these efforts should be supported with ro-bust prototyping to demonstrate the now disaggregated missions of strategic missile warning and battlespace awareness for increased resiliency: operational demonstrations to drive down operational interface risks and technical demonstrations to drive down tech-nical risks so that technology insertion into our operational sys-tems can be done in a low-risk fashion. Prototypes should have re-sidual operational capability that can contribute immediately to the resilience of the mission. Plan for Use of Allied Launch Services in Case of Emergency Need The committee notes that a plan for the use of allied launch vehi-cles was mandated by section 1604 of the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). This plan was to provide assured access to space should the Department of Defense be unable to meet that requirement for a limited period using only U.S. launch vehicles. In 2017, the Air Force provided to Congress a report that ana-lyzed the initial potential of using an allied nation’s launch vehicle and services for U.S. national security space launches. The com-mittee commends the Air Force for providing this analysis. The VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

229 committee notes the report identified a number of activities that have not been implemented, specifically regarding the pursuit of non-recurring design validation or certification of the allied launch system for specific payloads or reference missions, early integration studies of specific payloads, an environmental impact statement plus one year of standard mission integration and space-flight-wor-thiness assessment, and the pursuit of a pathfinder mission. The committee further notes that additional capabilities may be needed to use allied launch capability in the event of an emergency and inability of U.S. launch providers to provide assured access to space. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a re-port to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 3, 2018, on an operational backup plan for assured access into space using allied launch vehicles. This plan shall include: (1) an assessment of U.S. satellites that would be appropriate to be launched on an allied launch vehicle; (2) relevant laws, regulations, and policies governing the launch of national security satellites; (3) whether any legislative, regulatory, or policy actions or changes would be necessary to allow for the launch of a national security satellite on an allied launch vehicle; and (4) the certification requirements for using allied launch vehicles pursuant to the plan and the estimated cost, schedule, and meas-ures that would be necessary to certify allied launch vehicles. When creating this backup plan, the committee expects the Sec-retary to leverage findings identified by the previous Air Force re-port. Portable Satellite Data Receiver Status The committee notes that the United States Air Force Research Laboratory’s Small Business Initiative Research has provided fund-ing for the development of a unique satellite communications re-ceive suite for reliable, portable connection by the warfighter to the Global Broadcast System (GBS). The committee is aware that the Department of Defense joint program office now includes these portable receive suites as an approved solution for receive tech-nology with military satellite communications on the existing GBS network. The committee encourages the Department of Defense and the Air Force to ensure that these suites are made available to the warfighter. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2018, on a plan, including applicability and cost, for rapidly fielding commercially available, secure, satellite, Suitcase Portable Receive Suites and Rucksack Portable Receive Suites in support of deployed warfighter operations. Rapid Satellite Capability Reconstitution The committee recognizes the value that rapid reconstitution may contribute to increasing resilience in the space domain. The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 15, 2019, on the needs and capabilities of the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

230 Department of Defense to rapidly reconstitute disaggregated Earth- orbiting satellite constellations. The report should include options for developing an approach for commercially acquiring, where cost effective, resilient and rapid launch services to support reconstitu-tion, including but not limited to the feasibility of launching sat-ellites within one week of need. Satellite Communications The committee is aware that the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141) added two more Wideband Global Satellite Communications System (WGS) satellites. The committee also notes the increasing demand for satellite communications (SATCOM) capacity and the potential for increased contribution from commercial SATCOM providers. In addition, recognizing the growing capacity and resilience requirements, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) re-quired that the pilot program required under section 1605 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) provide order-of-magnitude improvements in SATCOM capability. The committee is aware of proven commercial SATCOM tech-nology, including high capacity satellite communications tech-nology, that delivers improvements in capacity and performance ca-pabilities and supports operations in contested environments in a cost-effective manner. The committee supports the Department of Defense’s request for multiyear procurement authority for these services. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to sub-mit a report to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by December 1, 2018, including: (1) the costs associated with the procurement, operations, and sustainment of the additional WGS satellites, including life-cycle costs, and costs related to operations and maintenance, and launch; (2) an update on the status of the Air Force commercial SATCOM pilot and pathfinder programs, including an update on fulfilling the order-of-magnitude requirement, an explanation of the steps the Department is taking to expedite the integration of com-mercially available high capacity satellite communications to meet the growing capacity demand and counter accelerating adversary communications denial capabilities, and whether the Air Force plans to use its existing authorities to solicit and award annual services contracts; and (3) a comprehensive plan to modernize terminals and networking capability needed to access and adopt new multi-domain commer-cial communications technologies, multi-mode terminals and net-work. Space Flag Exercise and Responsive Launch The committee is encouraged that the budget request proposed creating a dedicated Air Force Space Procurement funding line to acquire affordable, flexible launch services to deliver spacelift capa-bility for small payloads to low Earth orbit through geostationary transfer orbit. The committee supports the proposed Rocket System Launch Program procurement and encourages sustained invest-

231 ment to further operationalize integration of new small launch services into the space enterprise. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) also states that the Secretary of Defense should establish ‘‘an annual capstone training event’’ for space pro-fessionals to refine doctrine, operations, and training. This ‘‘Space Flag’’ exercise improves training to operate in the event of loss of space capabilities and to deter conflict in space. The U.S. Air Force concluded its second annual Space Flag exercise in August 2017 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Demonstrating overt resolve and ability to rapidly replenish di-minished capabilities could contribute to increasing resilience in space as it relates to operations, tactics, and procedures for pro-tecting and defending U.S. assets. In addition, integrating respon-sive launch capabilities into the annual Space Flag event could be an important step in evolving space mission operations, and to test, train, and operationalize these capabilities. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by December 1, 2018, on the value, plans, requirements, and benefits of aligning the small launch activities of the Rocket System Launch Program with the annual Space Flag training exercise. Use of Commercial Items in Follow-On Wideband Communications System The committee supports efforts to conduct an analysis of alter-natives for a follow-on wideband communications system to the Wideband Global Satellite Communications System as required by section 1611 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee encourages the De-partment of Defense’s efforts to maximize the use of commercial satellite communications capabilities as required by section 2377 of title 10, United States Code. Section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, requires that Fed-eral agencies maximize the use of commercial items in determining requirements and soliciting for procurements. To prevent critical satellite communications capability gaps and to field a follow-on wideband communications system by 2021, the Department must ensure that its market research is fully investigating the ability of a commercial offeror to meet the requirements of the Air Force’s procurement needs on a commercial basis, in part or in full. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by June 30, 2018, on the Department’s efforts to comply with section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, and on its analysis of alternatives for a follow-on wideband communications system. MISSILEDEFENSEPROGRAMSAirborne Tracking and Targeting System The Committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency has been working on technologies to develop and test ballistic missile track-ing and surveillance using MQ–9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles under an experimental program. The Committee directs the Missile VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

232 Defense Agency, in coordination with Commander, Pacific Com-mand and Commander, Central Command, to provide a brief to the House Armed Services Committee by December 31, 2018 on the ad-dition of an operational fleet of advanced sensors deployed on MQ– 9 Reaper systems to the ballistic missile defense system, to include integration and test efforts, operational value for regional and homeland defense, basing options, Warfighter concepts of oper-ation, and total research, development, test and evaluation and op-erations and sustainment costs associated with deployment to the Pacific command and Central command areas of responsibility. Cruise Missile Threat to Hawaii The committee notes the cruise missile threat to the United States, including Hawaii, and notes that the ballistic missile de-fense review, which has been delayed, may address this issue. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in con-sultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to provide to the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives a briefing no later than 45 days after the Ballistic Missile Defense Review is submitted to Congress, on the cruise missile defense threat to the United States, including Hawaii, including in the event of a conflict with Russia or China, the role of nuclear deter-rence plays in the layered defense of the United States, and an as-sessment of the required architecture, development and deploy-ment timeline, estimated costs and any relevant policy implications related to a potential cruise missile defense system to protect the United States, including specifically Hawaii. Cybersecurity of Ballistic Missile Defense System This committee notes the 2017 report from the Director, Oper-ational Test and Evaluation, of the Department of Defense, on the cybersecurity testing gaps that exist for the Ballistic Missile De-fense System (BMDS). The committee further notes that a plan is needed from the Missile Defense Agency and Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to conduct vulnerability assessments, coopera-tive vulnerability and penetration assessments, and adversarial as-sessments on all BMDS mission elements. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in coordi-nation with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, to pro-vide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by December 31, 2018, on the BMDS cybersecurity testing road map. The briefing must include a comprehensive plan to improve the cybersecurity posture of the mission elements of the BMDS, including addressing the require-ment to further enhance such posture through the integration and dissemination of left- and right-of-launch data, and what process the Director of the Missile Defense Agency will use to incorporate lessons learned from the cybersecurity assessments. Hypersonic Defense The committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2018, on the hypersonic defense analysis of alter-natives and the integrated plan, including estimated costs to de-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

233 liver hypersonic defense capabilities in a manner that is global, cost effective, persistent, and provides resilient tracking, in accord-ance with section 1687 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). This briefing shall in-clude an assessment on the required architecture, deployment timeline, and estimated costs for defense against hypersonic threats as demonstrated and/or pursued by Russia and China. Maintenance of Patriot Batteries The committee notes that an ongoing review by the Comptroller General of the United States of the Army’s maintenance of the Pa-triot missile defense system has found that although the Army be-lieves that the current pace of recapitalizing Patriot equipment in-curs long-term risks to sustaining the system, the Army has con-cluded that it cannot increase the recapitalization pace without af-fecting current operational demands or without shifting resources from its integrated air and missile defense modernization priorities. In addition, the ongoing review by the Comptroller General has found that the return of reset equipment to Patriot units generally has not met the Army’s timeliness goal and that delays in return-ing reset equipment can affect unit training. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives not later than December 1, 2018, on a plan to conduct a compara-tive analysis of factors affecting Patriot reset timeliness and appro-priate corrective actions to improve timeliness. Options To Supplement Missile Defense of Hawaii The committee notes that Hawaii is currently defended against missile threats from North Korea by the deployed ground-based interceptors located at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Mindful of potential costs and untested ca-pability of Standard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptors against long- range missile threats, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, not later than September 15, 2018, on the potential to supplement this defense by assigning a permanent Aegis ship patrol to increase a layered ballistic missile defense of Hawaii, with the assumption that SM–3 missiles might be effective against long-range threats. The briefing should address the technical capability, feasibility, benefits, risks, cost, and trade- offs of this option for the purpose of defending Hawaii. In addition, mindful of the high demand for Terminal High Alti-tude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries and the untested capability of the THAAD weapon system against long-range threats, the com-mittee also directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representa-tives, not later than September 15, 2018, on the feasibility of sta-tioning a permanent THAAD battery in Hawaii, and the technical capability, costs, benefits, and risks of testing a THAAD interceptor against an intercontinental ballistic missile. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

234 Patriot Interceptor Inventory The committee recognizes, given the reality of ever-increasing ca-pabilities and quantities of ballistic missiles and air-breathing threats (such as cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles), the importance of maintaining a full complement of interceptors for the Patriot system. Section 1678 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) directed the Army to submit a plan to maintain an inventory of interceptors necessary to retain the capability provided by Patriot interceptors. The com-mittee notes that the report has not yet been received and will be delayed until July 2018. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Chief of Staff of the Army, to submit an amended report to the congressional defense committees by July 31, 2018, that addresses the value of maintaining use of Guidance Enhanced Missile (GEM–T) capabilities alongside Patriot Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3) and PAC–3 Missile Segment Enhanced (MSE) to provide Patriot with a full complement of capability and capacity against current and evolving threats, including air-breath-ing and all other types of ballistic missiles. The report should also include the Army’s intent to recertify the aging GEM–T inventory and cite a desired date to commence this activity so as to minimize any negative consequences to Patriot munitions capacity. Protection of Ballistic Missile Defense System Components The committee notes an increase to land-based ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) components with the development and de-livery of the Long Range Discriminating Radar, Homeland Defense Radar-Hawaii, Pacific Radar, and completion of the Aegis Ashore site in Poland. These new sites are in addition to already deployed terrestrial weapon system sites and radars. Responsibility for pro-tection of these sites against threats such as cruise missiles, un-manned aerial vehicles, and electronic warfare falls under the com-batant commander for which they are located. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, and appropriate regional combatant commands, to provide a briefing to the congres-sional defense committees by November 30, 2018, detailing the cur-rent protections of deployed BMDS assets from cruise missile, un-manned aerial vehicle, and electronic warfare threats. The briefing should also include the requirements for protection of the future assets that are in the program of record, as well as any plans to increase protection of current and future assets, including costs and any mitigating measures in the event that a system is de-graded or unavailable. Standard Missile–3 Testing and Reliability The committee is aware of the role and importance of the Stand-ard Missile–3 (SM–3) interceptors in providing missile defense ca-pability to the warfighter. The committee notes that failures of the SM–3 IB and SM–3 IIA revealed issues that may have been avoid-ed with additional system engineering focus, and these recent chal-lenges could have impacts on reliability assessments of these inter-ceptors by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

235 The committee also notes that section 1680 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) included a requirement to test the SM–3 IIA capability against a longer range threat. The committee directs the Director of the Mis-sile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than August 1, 2018, on how the recent SM–3 IIA test failure affects the planned test of this missile against an interconti-nental ballistic missile-range target. This briefing should include implications such as changes to timeline of planned tests, require-ments for additional tests, and changes in funding requirements. The committee also directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Test and Evaluation, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than December 15, 2018, detailing how the Missile Defense Agency will ensure the contractor’s systems engineering and ground testing procedures are adequate to support production of SM–3 IB and SM–3 IIA interceptors. The briefing should describe how ground test data from production interceptors supports SM–3 reliability es-timates from the Missile Defense Agency and the Office of Test and Evaluation. Warfighter Procedures for Responding to and Releasing Information Regarding an Inbound Ballistic Missile Threat The committee notes that on January 13, 2018, the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency (HI–EMA) issued a false incoming ballistic missile alert that caused widespread panic and confusion in the State of Hawaii. The U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) noti-fied HI–EMA that no launch had occurred within minutes of the false alert being issued. Nevertheless, it took HI–EMA 38 minutes to retract the alert. The committee notes the importance of clear and accurate com-munications and cooperation between PACOM and relevant federal and state entities responsible for communicating and alerting the public of an incoming threat. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on ballistic missile alert procedure, warfighter coordination, plans, and timelines in the event of a legitimate incoming ballistic missile attack to the Homeland, including coordination, plans and timelines for releas-ing critical defense information to other Federal agencies, and state entities as appropriate, responsible for informing the general pub-lic. The briefing shall also include the DoD’s role and process, if any, in retracting a false, misinformed, or unauthorized alert issued by a federal or state agency regarding an inbound ballistic missile threat.

236 NUCLEARFORCESAir Force Global Strike Command and Nuclear Deterrence Institute The committee continues to oversee Air Force Global Strike Com-mand (AFGSC) as it leads and coordinates efforts across the Air Force for both nuclear deterrence operations and the National Leadership Command Capabilities/Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications system. The committee believes strong and sus-tained attention on these missions will be required as the Air Force carries out its portions of the nuclear modernization program. The committee understands that the AFGSC’s strategy to en-hance science, technology, innovation, and collaboration related to its missions has successfully leveraged partnerships with local gov-ernments, academia, industry, and non-profits. This strategy also includes an intent to establish an institute dedicated to AFGSC’s missions, further leverage these partnerships, and provide AFGSC an analytical foundation and direct access to expertise across its mission set. To better understand how the Air Force intends to pro-ceed with this initiative, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2018, on implementation of the AFGSC’s strategy to enhance science, technology, innovation, and collabora-tion. The briefing should include: (1) the Secretary’s decision regarding if, and if so, when and how, to establish the institute recommended by the strategy; (2) whether and how the institute could uniquely contribute to the nuclear deterrence operations mission of the Air Force without duplication of other capabilities and resources; and (3) the benefits and costs associated with the institute. B83–1 Nuclear Gravity Bomb The committee notes that the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) proposes to retain the B83–1 nuclear gravity bomb in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, whereas it had previously been slated for re-tirement in the early 2020s. The NPR stated, ‘‘the B83–1 and B61– 11 gravity bombs can hold at risk a variety of protected targets. As a result, both will be retained in the stockpile, at least until there is sufficient confidence in the B61–12 gravity bomb that will be available in 2020.’’ The NPR elaborated, saying it proposes ‘‘sus-taining the B83–1 past its currently planned retirement date until a suitable replacement is identified.’’ The committee also notes that in 2012, the National Nuclear Se-curity Administration (NNSA) estimated that retaining the B83 gravity bomb would potentially require it to undergo an alteration in the 2020s and a life extension program in the 2030s, both of which would cost billions of dollars. Additionally, the NNSA may have planned to use certain materials from the B83 for currently planned life extension programs. The committee believes further explanation for the decision to re-tain the B83 is warranted, particularly because such decision may require the B83 to undergo significant life extension activities and could impact other planned warhead modernization programs. The VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

237 committee also expects a fuller understanding of the military re-quirements associated with the B83–1 and its retention. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by November 15, 2018, on the plan and rationale for, and implications of, retaining the B83–1. The report should ad-dress specific military requirements associated with the decision to now retain the B83–1, impacts on current or planned warhead pro-grams including re-use of any materials, and potential risks, bene-fits, plans and costs associated with continued surveillance and po-tential life extension activities for the B83–1. The committee di-rects the report to be provided in unclassified form, with a classi-fied annex as necessary. Comptroller General Review of Plans To Swap B61 Bombs in Europe The committee notes that the Department of Energy and the De-partment of Defense are carrying out a life extension program to maintain the safety, security, reliability, and credibility of B61 nu-clear gravity bombs, and expect a first production unit of the up-dated B61–12 weapon to be available in late 2019. To swap legacy B61 bombs currently deployed in Europe in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for modern B61–12 bombs, the Air Force will conduct movements of nuclear weapons to and from Europe using certified military cargo aircraft. Initial planning for these movements is underway and the committee understands that such planning requires dialogue and close coordination with host nation governments. To enable improved oversight of this planning, the committee di-rects the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a re-port to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2019, containing a review and assessment of the Department of Defense plans to swap B61 nuclear gravity bombs in Europe, including the following: (1) readiness of the military forces responsible for conducting and supporting the weapon movements; (2) coordination between the United States and allied host na-tions regarding the movements; (3) any potential actions that may be considered or planned to enhance surety and survivability; and (4) the Department of Defense’s identification and mitigation of any risks to these plans. Nuclear Survivability and Hostile Environments Testing To be a credible and effective deterrent, U.S. nuclear weapons are designed to operate in the most extreme hostile environments. The committee has no doubt that current U.S. nuclear forces and weapons meet these exacting requirements. However, as it has ex-pressed in the past, the committee believes that the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) must be mindful of how the threat environment and so-called ‘‘stockpile-to-target sequence’’ may evolve as adversaries continue VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

238 to advance their defensive capabilities. In particular, the committee believes the United States must ensure it has the capability to ex-perimentally test materials, components, subsystems, and full sys-tems in realistic environments that combine multiple extreme threats. To better understand Department of Defense and NNSA efforts in this regard, the committee directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council, in coordination with the Administrator for Nu-clear Security, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by Novem-ber 30, 2018, on nuclear weapon survivability requirements and re-lated test capabilities. Such briefing should include: (1) current requirements related to survivability and the stock-pile-to-target sequence; (2) the evolving threat environment and potential changes to such requirements over the next 20 years; (3) capabilities to test materials, components, subsystems, and systems in realistic, combined environments; (4) any risks or gaps in such experimental capabilities and any plans to address or mitigate such risks or gaps; and (5) any changes in concepts of operation that may be applicable. Perimeter Security at NATO Nuclear Bases The committee appreciates the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) deterrence and defense mission, and the role that U.S. forward-deployed nuclear weapons play in the NATO Alliance. The committee notes its continuing interest in en-suring robust and consistent security for these weapons and that NATO, the United States, and individual host nations have en-gaged in a series of security enhancement and modernization projects in recent years. The committee applauds these steps and supports ongoing efforts to standardize requirements and security measures across NATO’s nuclear bases but also recognizes that each base and host nation presents different challenges for imple-mentation and standardization of upgrades. The committee believes that continued enhancements and progress towards standardiza-tion is an important endeavor, and that an area particularly ripe for further action is perimeter security. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representa-tives and the Senate by December 1, 2018, assessing and com-paring perimeter security at all NATO nuclear bases. Such briefing should also contain the following: (1) a comparison of perimeter security at NATO nuclear bases versus each other and versus nuclear bases in the United States; (2) details on requirements and standards for perimeter security at NATO nuclear bases and nuclear bases in the United States; and (3) a plan for actions that the United States could propose and undertake to standardize and enhance perimeter security at NATO nuclear bases, including through bilateral engagements with host nations and multilateral engagement through NATO. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

239 Plutonium Pit Production and Reuse In 2008, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy stated in a joint report, ‘‘at present the United States does not have the ability to produce new nuclear weapons,’’ particularly the abil-ity to produce plutonium pits. In 2010, the Secretaries signed a Memorandum of Agreement that said the National Nuclear Secu-rity Administration (NNSA) would ‘‘plan and program to ramp up to a minimum of 50–80 pits/year.’’ In 2014, the Secretary of De-fense said in a letter to the congressional defense committees that ‘‘the Department of Defense (DOD) has revalidated its requirement for 50–80 pits per year based on the demands of stockpile mod-ernization, the commitments to a modern physical infrastructure, and the ability to hedge against technical or geopolitical risk.’’ Section 3112 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), put this requirement, and associated timeframes for production, into statute and included a Sense of Congress that ‘‘the requirement to create a modern, responsive nuclear infrastructure that includes the capability and capacity to produce, at minimum, 50 to 80 pits per year, is a national security priority.’’ The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) also discusses the need for a plutonium pit production capacity, saying ‘‘the United States does not have a sustained plutonium pit manufacturing capability needed to avoid stockpile age-out, support life extension programs (LEP), and prepare for future uncertainty . . . To avoid age-related risks, DOD requires NNSA to produce at least 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030, and to sustain the capacity for future LEPs and follow-on programs.’’ The committee continues to believe a pit production capability is a national security priority, but seeks clarification on whether and why the 2018 NPR has modified the pit production requirement. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in co-ordination with the Secretary of Energy and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by November 30, 2018, on the annual pit production requirement, in-cluding any associated timelines. Such report should include a de-tailed rationale and justification for any changes to the require-ment, the drivers behind the requirement, and associated costs. Such report should also include a detailed assessment of the poten-tial to reuse plutonium pits that are currently in the inventory of the United States. Tonopah Test Range Land Use Agreement The committee understands that the Air Force and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are currently negotiating an extension to a land use agreement at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) which enables NNSA’s Sandia National Laboratories to uti-lize a portion of TTR for drop testing of inert nuclear gravity bombs. Sandia Labs has been operating at TTR since 1956, when it originally used 580 square miles of the range, and since the most recent update to the agreement in 2002 has been using 280 square miles. The current land use agreement expires in 2019 and is likely to make further reductions to make additional land available to the VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

240 Air Force. The committee supports efforts to provide additional land for the Air Force mission at TTR and nearby ranges, which are operating over capacity, but is mindful that Sandia and NNSA must be able to carry out their testing mission. The committee en-courages and looks forward to a cooperative, mutually beneficial update to this agreement that enables both partners to carry out their important missions. CYBER-RELATEDMATTERSAddressing Readiness Deficiencies Through the Hacking for Defense Innovation Education Program The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) authorized the Sec-retary of Defense to support national security innovation and en-trepreneurial education, including but not limited to, Hacking for Defense. The committee notes that expansion of Hacking for Defense inno-vation and entrepreneurial education at U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) universities may optimize and en-hance the Department’s innovation efforts outlined in the 2018 Na-tional Defense Strategy. Developing a culture of rapid and mean-ingful innovation, and deploying advanced warfighter solutions, may remedy existing readiness deficiencies. The committee also notes that Hacking for Defense innovation education programs may benefit overall Department of Defense professional education such as at the National Defense University, the Defense Acquisition University, the Naval Postgraduate School, and other professional education programs. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 28, 2018 on how the Department may expand Hacking for Defense to sup-port the Department’s innovation and entrepreneurial education ef-forts, including a description of how the Hacking for Defense pro-gram is currently being employed within the Department of De-fense and how it may be further leveraged to provide advanced warfighter solutions, address readiness deficiencies, and reinvigo-rate, modernize, and enhance the Department’s innovation edu-cation with U.S. and NATO universities and professional education programs. Comptroller General Review of Current Military Cyber Operations The committee notes that in the last several years, the Depart-ment of Defense has employed cyber capabilities to achieve objec-tives in or through cyberspace. Unlike military operations that occur in the air and land domains, cyberspace operations and the effects of those operations are not always visible to Congress and the American people. The committee believes that as the Depart-ment continues to conduct cyberspace operations, it will be critical that operations are fully aligned with the appropriate authorities, policies and doctrine, rules of engagement, plans, oversight mecha-nisms, and lessons learned processes. It will also be important that the Department manages the number of organizations that are con-

241 ducting these operations, to ensure there are clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and that there are deconfliction mechanisms in place. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the Department of Defense’s current mili-tary cyberspace operations. The assessment should identify: (1) the types of cyberspace operations the Department has under-taken, activities undertaken to prepare for cyberspace operations, and the organizations conducting these operations; (2) authorities, policies, doctrine, and rules of engagement for these operations; (3) internal oversight and congressional reporting mechanisms; (4) efforts to develop and synchronize cyberspace operations with-in combatant commanders’ plans; and (5) processes used to deconflict cyberspace operations or mitigate the impact of cyberspace operations on other military operations. The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on preliminary findings, and submit a final report to the con-gressional defense committees at a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. Comptroller General Review of Information Operations Strategy The committee notes that information operations are a means for the United States to promote economic and political freedom, as well as countering all forms of extremism and adversarial influ-ence. In June 2016, in response to a congressional requirement, the Department of Defense issued an information operations strategy to align departmental actions and ensure effective integration of Department of Defense efforts. These efforts contribute to the mis-sion that the Department of State’s Global Engagement Center was directed to lead, organize, and synchronize. Section 1637 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) directed the Department of Defense to establish processes and procedures to integrate strategic infor-mation operations and cyber-enabled information operations across the relevant elements of the Department of Defense, including those responsible for military deception, public affairs, electronic warfare, and cyber operations. This section also directed the De-partment of Defense to coordinate regional information strategies and interagency coordination plans of the combatant commands with the appropriate Department of State officials and the Global Engagement Center, and to develop an implementation plan to support the Department of Defense Strategy for Operations in the Information Environment. However, the committee remains con-cerned about the lack of progress in developing the strategy, tools, and coordination mechanisms to counter adversarial influence. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess the Department’s information operations strategy and implementation efforts. The assessment shall: (1) identify the Department of Defense’s implementation of the 2016 strategy, integration of cyber and intelligence capabilities, and other activities, for information operations; VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

242 (2) identify roles, responsibilities, and coordination of activities within the Department of Defense, and between the Department and interagency partners; (3) identify previous and planned investments by the Department to support and implement information operations; and (4) any other matters the Comptroller General determines rel-evant. The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2019, on preliminary findings, with a report to follow at a time agreed to at the time of the briefing. Cyber Scholarship Program The budget request contained $7.9 million in PE 33140D8Z, for the defense-wide Information Security Systems Program. Section 1649 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) amended chapter 112 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the Department of Defense Cyber Scholarship Program. The committee believes the Cyber Scholar-ship program may alleviate the challenges the Department of De-fense is experiencing in recruiting and retaining cybersecurity per-sonnel. Additionally, the committee believes that providing addi-tional opportunities under the program will be beneficial in ad-dressing Department requirements for a qualified cyber workforce, especially if the Department focuses on educating the public and relevant academic institutions about this program. The committee also believes that Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs at universities that offer degrees in cyber studies and related fields provide an opportunity to leverage and expand partnerships to as-sist in closing the gap of trained cyber warriors in the military. Therefore, the committee recommends $17.9 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 33140D8Z. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by Feb-ruary 1, 2019, on the implementation and utilization of the Cyber Scholarship Program, to include efforts to educate the public and focus on institutions with high-quality computer science, engineer-ing, and cybersecurity programs, including historically black col-leges and universities, and minority-serving institutions. The brief-ing should also include implementation and utilization of efforts to leverage ROTC at institutions with cyber studies as a way to ex-pand the pool of talented technical applicants. Information Security Continuous Monitoring and Comply-To- Connect Implementation While the Committee understands that pursuant to the require-ments established in Section 1653 of the National Defense Author-ization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), the Depart-ment of Defense included language relating to a Department-wide automated information security continuous monitoring capability and a comply-to-connect policy in its Fiscal Year 2019 budget re-quest, the Committee is concerned that this language failed to ade-quately explain the Department’s implementation strategy and the resources it will require. The Committee therefore directs the Di-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

243 rector of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to provide the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, no later than December 1, 2018, a briefing specifically outlining the resources and any recommendations that will be required to fully address the requirements contained within Section 1653 of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure On September 13, 2017, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed a memorandum establishing the Cloud Executive Steering Group to accelerate the adoption of enterprise-wide cloud architecture and services, known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI. A report provided to Congress by the Department of Defense on October 19, 2017, in response to the committee report (H. Rept. 114–577) accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, outlined several challenges impacting the Department’s ability to expand commercial cloud service usage. These included accurately projecting costs for security and complex migrations, lack of consistent security requirements, and an inability to iden-tify tangible cost-savings. Although the report outlined efforts to address these challenges, additional information has not been pro-vided to the committee on progress to that end. The report also out-lined several ongoing cloud computing activities. The committee has long championed modernization of informa-tion technology to facilitate efficiencies and cost-savings, enhance performance, and provide our warfighters with cutting-edge capa-bilities on and off the battlefield. The committee is encouraged by the Department’s renewed commitment to accelerate the adoption of cloud computing architecture and services. However, the committee is concerned with the lack of informa-tion supporting the planned acquisition of JEDI from a single com-mercial provider. This includes lack of detail regarding security re-quirements and associated costs, anticipated cost-savings, migra-tion costs, and how the Department intends to maintain the ability to leverage the latest cloud computing capabilities and preserve the ability to transition workloads and data to other providers. Additionally, the committee has not been provided with details on customer capability requirements or how JEDI impacts current cloud computing services and other activities, such as those identi-fied in the October 2017 report. The committee expects the Depart-ment to provide sufficient information necessary for the conduct of oversight responsibilities. Mitigation of Autonomous Systems The Committee notes the Department’s increased reliance on au-tonomous systems and their associated datalinks and sensors. While the Committee supports increased investments in these sys-tems, the rapid research, development, and deployment of autono-mous equipment presents unique challenges to cyber vulnerability. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing by December 1, 2018 outlining the specific steps the Department is taking to protect autonomous systems from cyberattack, including mitigations resulting from the cyber vulner-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

244 ability evaluations of major weapon systems that were conducted as directed by Section 1647 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The briefing should address layered cyber defense of associated datalinks, sensors, and onboard systems, technologies used to secure the communication architecture and RF links, and any other approaches used to im-prove the cyber security in these systems. Network Protection The committee is aware that open, highly scalable network pro-tection platforms that allow for integration of both government and commercial off-the-shelf capabilities, may allow for the Department of Defense to keep pace with evolving threats. The committee be-lieves expeditious detection and mitigation is critical, especially as the Department makes greater use of commercial cloud computing and other commercial capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 5, 2019, on the status and evolution of auto-mated cyber defense capabilities, to include those that automati-cally detect and mitigate malware and other threats. The briefing should include a description of efforts to acquire an open, scalable platform that can integrate commercial and government off-the- shelf technologies, and an evaluation of the potential effectiveness of a capability that can be deployed within and across network boundaries and endpoints. Operational Cyber Testing of Weapons Systems The committee is aware of the challenges of performing oper-ational cyber testing of weapon systems to understand the poten-tial impacts of a cyber attack to the system’s performance. The committee continues to believe in the importance of evaluating the cyber vulnerabilities of major Department of Defense weapons sys-tems, as authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee recognizes that for some systems there are gaps in the capability of the oper-ational test and evaluation infrastructure that prevent it from ade-quately completing tests and measuring the impacts on a weapon system of a realistic cyber threat. The committee is also aware of efforts within the Department to further develop the capabilities to provide the necessary test, modeling, and simulation capabilities to build a robust infrastructure to be able to perform comprehensive cybersecurity weapon systems testing. The committee encourages the Department to utilize collaboration between academia and the different test ranges and facilities to build a robust infrastructure to execute tactical cyber attack scenarios against weapon systems in an operationally realistic environment. Plan to Enhance Coordination With Universities and Industry on Cyber Education The committee notes that universities and private industry will continue to be critical partners in the education and training of our future cyber force. Traditional academic approaches to cyber train-ing and cyber certifications such as Security + and CISSP are VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

245 based on preventing vulnerabilities, attacks, and gaps that have been identified in the past. The committee is concerned that the relevance of the training content of academic institutions could be immaterial depending on when the courseware was updated. Bridg-ing the gap in cyber training between curriculum that has been built on legacy data versus training built on current real world cyberattacks is a meaningful area of cyber training research, cur-riculum development, and instruction delivery that must be ad-dressed. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to present to the defense committees a plan on how the Depart-ment of Defense can leverage and partner with universities and in-dustry on cyber education and training that addresses this gap by November 1, 2018. This plan shall include: current partnerships and ability to expand and leverage those partnerships; existing cur-riculum and recommended changes needed to ensure relevance to future threats; joint development of curriculum, courseware and re-search projects; availability and joint use of university facilities; and recommended changes to legislation to improve cyber edu-cation and training partnerships. Securing Personally Identifiable Information The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense takes extensive measures to protect the personally identifiable informa-tion (PII) of its Servicemembers and civilian employees but that more remains to be done, especially with advances in technological communications and evolving threats. For instance, the use of smartphone devices invites new security threats that could poten-tially exploit the integrity of PII. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Com-mittee on Armed Services by October 31, 2018 detailing informa-tion security technologies that the Department employs to protect the official unclassified email and official unclassified mobile com-munications of its employees. Threat Cyberspace Operations The committee notes the increasingly contested nature of the cyber domain and the growing reliance of the Department of De-fense and the military services on information technology systems. The committee continues to believe in the importance of performing robust cyber security assessments to determine the potential vulnerabilities of a system to a cyber-attack. The committee is aware that these assessments are based on realistic adversarial threats, including intelligence-based cyber tactics, techniques, and procedures that are representative of the continually emerging ad-versary capabilities. The Army Threat Cyberspace Operations pro-gram maintains a threat intelligence-based test capability that is important in meeting these mission needs. Therefore, the com-mittee urges the Department of the Army to ensure that this pro-gram is adequately funded in future years to maintain cyber threat capabilities in an environment where the threat is rapidly evolving.

246 INTELLIGENCEMATTERSFoundational Intelligence Analysis Modernization The committee believes the Department of Defense must ensure that the defense intelligence enterprise has modern tools that can quickly integrate new technologies to assist analysts providing in-telligence to support operations and acquisition activities. The com-mittee is aware of the Department’s efforts to modernize intel-ligence capabilities; however, the committee is concerned by a lack of urgency in modernizing the defense intelligence enterprise’s ca-pabilities to provide foundational intelligence to the combatant commands and the military services. Therefore, the committee di-rects the Joint Staff Director for Intelligence, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), to develop a plan by Octo-ber 1, 2018, to modernize systems used to provide foundational in-telligence. Further, the committee directs the Joint Staff Director for Intelligence, in coordination with the DIA Director, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2018, on such plan to modernize foundational intelligence sys-tems. If a determination is made that a new system is required, the committee expects the Battlespace Awareness Functional Capabili-ties Board to validate the requirements for any new system, and that the acquisition plan will follow best practices for the rapid ac-quisition and improvement of technology dependent systems. Insider Threat Detection and User Activity Monitoring The committee is aware that in June 2015, the Government Ac-countability Office recommended that the Department of Defense issue risk-assessment guidance and evaluate the ability of its in-sider threat programs to address capability gaps (GAO–15–544). The committee is also aware of the Department’s efforts to rapidly detect and remedy cyber vulnerabilities through programs such as the Air Force’s Automated Remediation and Asset Discovery Pro-gram. The committee believes that continuous network monitoring and greater network visibility can significantly improve security of the Department’s classified information and systems. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to perform cost and technical analyses of available commercial off-the-shelf and govern-ment off-the-shelf solutions for user activity monitoring and for rapid detection and remediation of cyber attacks, for the purposes of obtaining best value and performance to decrease risks. Further, the committee directs the Chief Management Officer to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2018, on the outcomes of its cost and technical anal-yses required by this report, and the Department’s efforts to imple-ment enterprise-wide programs and policies for insider threat de-tection, user activity monitoring, and cyber attack detection and re-mediation. Insider Threat Risk Model Validation The committee supports the Department of Defense continued ef-forts to improve vetting and screening of its workforce for potential threats. The committee commends the efforts to develop risk-rating VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

247 tools and to migrate department programs to a risk in person model in order to prioritize risk so that the Department can effi-ciently allocate resources against the riskiest populations inside the workforce. The committee encourages the Department to continue to evolve and mature insider threat and continuous vetting risk models and rating tools, especially those efforts to use artificial in-telligence and machine learning to help identify potential sources of human investigative biases in current tools and algorithms. The committee believes artificial intelligence and machine learning have tremendous potential to assist in the identification of poten-tial issues in time for commanders and other leaders to mitigate potential issues before they escalate into security vulnerabilities. Intelligence Combat Support Agencies The committee commends the work of the Under Secretary of De-fense for Intelligence to answer a request in the Intelligence Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division N of Public Law 115– 31) to review the roles and missions of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The committee agrees with the Under Secretary’s finding identifying a gap in Department of Defense coordination of the functions of the Combat Support Agencies (CSA) that also are members of the intelligence community. The directors of these agencies report to both the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, but these agencies lack a framework to balance the resourcing and mission conflicts this bifurcated chain of command can occasionally cause. Therefore, not later than Octo-ber 1, 2018, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in con-sultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to develop poli-cies that outline the process to balance the missions under the Combat Support Agency role with the missions and functions as-signed by the intelligence community. These policies must address a process for assigning and integrating any new missions assigned by the Department of Defense or the intelligence community. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives not later than October 15, 2018, on the plan to develop these policies. Intelligence Support to Cyber Operations The committee is concerned about the Defense Intelligence En-terprise’s ability to provide the cyber community with all-source in-telligence support, consistent with the support provided to oper-ations in other domains. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the military services, to pro-vide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by December 1, 2018, on intelligence support to cyber operations. The briefing should include efforts to standardize a common military intel-ligence lexicon and doctrine for intelligence preparation of the bat-tlefield for cyber operations, efforts to develop all-source intel-ligence analysts with the capability to support cyber operations, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

248 and efforts to fully resource intelligence analysis support elements at U.S. Cyber Command and the service cyber components. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Careers in Defense Intelligence The committee is concerned about the Defense Intelligence Agen-cy’s (DIA) ability to attract and maintain adequate science, tech-nology, engineering, and math (STEM) professionals. Specifically, the committee is concerned about career progression in the science and technology intelligence (S&TI) field at the Service Intelligence Centers and the Missile and Space Intelligence Center. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of DIA to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than December 1, 2018, on a plan to develop a STEM career program that attracts and maintains the defense intelligence cadre of S&TI analysts to meet tomorrow’s threats. Security and Intelligence Role in Export Control The committee is concerned about the coordination of security and technology protection issues involved in the export control process managed for the Department of Defense by the Under Sec-retary of Defense for Policy. The committee understands export controls support the Department’s broad policy objectives to build relationships with partner nations, but the committee believes the risks of technology transfer deserve close scrutiny by the intel-ligence and security communities. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2018, on security support to export control. Security Clearance Background Investigation Reciprocity The committee remains interested in improving the efficiency, ef-fectiveness and timeliness of background investigations for security clearances. The committee believes that the federal government must do more to address conditions that have caused the investiga-tion backlog, including reciprocity issues across agencies and de-partments. The committee notes that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) (Public Law 108–458) mandated that investigations initiated by an authorized investigative agency shall be transferable to any other authorized investigative agency, but a December 2017 Government Accountability Office report found full implementation of investigative transferability has yet to occur. The committee strongly believes that ample time has passed since the passage of IRTPA for full implementation of investigative reciprocity between agencies, and the failure to implement trans-ferability requirements is unacceptable. Not later than October 1, 2018, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordina-tion with the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to brief the committee on ef-forts to ensure seamless transition of investigations between au-thorized investigative agencies, as required by law. The committee has received numerous briefings on the Depart-ment’s plan to reassume the background investigation mission for VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

249 Department of Defense personnel from the National Background Investigations Bureau, and is encouraged by the efforts to move to-wards continuous evaluation and continuous vetting as a replace-ment for periodic reinvestigations to reduce the investigative back-log. The committee notes the lead role the Department is taking for continuous monitoring and continuous vetting across the federal government. The committee believes any solution to improve the ef-ficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of background investigations must be applied across the federal government uniformly. There-fore, not later than November 1, 2018, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Office of Personnel Manage-ment to brief the committee on efforts to ensure reciprocity is a consideration for implementation of continuous evaluation and con-tinuous vetting across the federal government. Strengthening Oversight of the Military Intelligence Program Budget The committee is aware of a recent draft Government Account-ability Office report on the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) that identifies a lack of clear and definitive guidance about which programs, projects, and activities should be assigned to the MIP. As a result, there may be intelligence and intelligence-related capa-bilities resourced outside of the MIP. Conversely, the committee be-lieves there are MIP resources allocated to programs, projects, and activities that do not primarily support the Secretary of Defense’s intelligence, counterintelligence, and related intelligence respon-sibilities and requirements. Thus, the Department of Defense’s ability to make informed decisions to balance appropriate resources against programs, projects, or activities is limited. The committee believes the Under Secretary of Defense for Intel-ligence (USDI) should take measures to more clearly define guid-ance about which programs, projects, or activities should be as-signed to the MIP using the Joint Publication’s definition of intel-ligence. Therefore, the committee directs USDI to review all of the Department’s intelligence, counterintelligence, and related intel-ligence programs, projects, and activities supporting the Secretary’s responsibilities and requirements. The review shall also include programs, projects, and activities potentially funded outside of the MIP. In conducting the review, the committee expects USDI to note that the committee believes resources for sensors integral to the function of weapon systems, sensors and systems developed for space and missile defense, and resources for activities and pro-grams associated with Operational Preparation of the Environment and Nonconventional Assisted Recovery are in support of oper-ational requirements, and should be excluded from designation to the MIP. Further, the committee directs USDI to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2019, on the results of the review, in-cluding how the review will result in clear guidance on designation of programs, projects, and activities to the MIP. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

250 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—SPACEACTIVITIESSection 1601—Improvements to Acquisition System, Personnel, and Organization of Space Forces This section would direct the Deputy Secretary of Defense to de-velop a plan to establish a separate alternative acquisition system for defense space acquisitions, including with respect to space vehi-cles, ground segments, and terminals. The Deputy Secretary would be required to submit a report to the congressional defense commit-tees by December 31, 2019, on such plan. This section would also task the Secretary of the Air Force to de-velop and implement a plan to increase the number and improve the quality of the civilian and military space cadre within the Air Force. The Secretary would also be required to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019, on such plan. This section would also require the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a new numbered Air Force responsible for space warfighting operations. The Secretary would be required to submit a plan for doing so to the congressional defense committees by De-cember 31, 2019. Lastly, this section would amend chapter 6 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new section that would establish a subor-dinate unified command for space under U.S. Strategic Command that would be responsible for joint space warfighting operations. Section 1602—Rapid, Responsive, and Reliable Space Launch This section would amend section 2273b of title 10, United States Code, regarding assured access to space to include consideration of rapid, responsive, and reliable space launches for national security space programs. It would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide for consideration of both reusable and expendable launch vehicles with respect to any solicitations occurring on or after March 1, 2019. Lastly, it would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a risk and cost impact analysis with respect to reusable launch vehicles for national security payloads. The Secretary would be required to submit such analysis to the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1603—Provision of Space Situational Awareness Services and Information This section would amend section 2274 of title 10, United States Code, by terminating the authority of the Department of Defense to provide space situational awareness (SSA) data to commercial and foreign entities on January 1, 2024. This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to enter into a contract with a fed-erally funded research and development center to assess which de-partment or departments should assume the authorities of section 2274 of title 10. This section would also direct the Secretary of De-fense to develop a plan to ensure that one or more departments may provide space situational awareness services to non-United

251 States Government entities. Lastly, this section would direct the Secretary to submit a report to the appropriate congressional com-mittees, as defined by this section, on such plan. Section 1604—Budget Assessments for National Security Space Programs This section would amend section 239b of title 10, United States Code, by extending the required budget assessments for national security space programs to fiscal year 2021 and by requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the budget for space programs to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after the date on which the President submits the budget request to Congress. Section 1605—Enhancement of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capacity This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to en-sure that military Global Positioning System user equipment ter-minals have the capability to receive Galileo and QZSS signals, starting with increment 2, including with appropriate mitigation efforts. This section would also require the terminals to have the capability to receive non-allied positioning, navigation, and timing signals if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Com-mander, U.S. Strategic Command, determines that the benefits outweigh the risks or the risks can be appropriately mitigated. This section would also require engagement with relevant U.S. allies. Section 1606—Use of Small- and Medium-Size Buses for Strategic and Tactical Satellite Payloads This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the risks, benefits, and cost savings with respect to using small- and medium-size buses for strategic and tactical satellite payloads for protected satellite communications programs and next- generation overhead persistent infrared systems. This section would further require the Secretary to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 180 after the date of the enactment of this Act, on such study. This section would also require the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to certify that future analysis of alter-natives include materiel solutions for using small- and medium-size buses. Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on alternative space-based architectures using small-, medium-, and large-size buses. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

252 Section 1607—Designation of Component of Department of Defense Responsible for Coordination of Modernization Efforts Relating to Military-Code Capable GPS Receiver Cards This section would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a component of the Office of the Secretary of Defense to be respon-sible for coordinating common solutions for the Military-code mod-ernization efforts among the military departments, Defense Agen-cies, and other appropriate elements of the Department of Defense by not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Section 1608—Designation of Component of Department of Defense Responsible for Coordination of Hosted Payload Information This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordina-tion with the Secretary of the Air Force, and other Secretaries of the military departments and the heads of Defense Agencies the Secretary determines appropriate, to designate a component of the Department of Defense or a military department to be responsible for coordinating information, processes, and lessons learned relat-ing to using commercially hosted payloads across the military de-partments, Defense Agencies, and other appropriate elements of the Department of Defense not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1609—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Joint Space Operations Center Mission System This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds for the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System and Enterprise Space Battle Management Command and Control program until the Deputy Secretary of Defense provides to the congressional de-fense committees a certification that the Secretary of the Air Force has entered into a contract to operationalize existing, proven, best- in-breed commercial space situational awareness processing soft-ware to address warfighter requirements and fill gaps in current space situational awareness capabilities. Section 1610—Evaluation and Enhanced Security of Supply Chain for Protected Satellite Communications Programs and Overhead Persistent Infrared Systems This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for and conduct evaluations of the supply chain vulnerabilities for protected satellite communications and next-generation over-head persistent infrared systems. Additionally, it would require the Secretary to develop risk mitigation strategies for the identified vulnerabilities. This section would require the Secretary to estab-lish requirements to carry out the supply chain vulnerability eval-uation and submit such requirements to the congressional defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Lastly, this section would require the Secretary to pro-vide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the plan developed for carrying out such an evaluation. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

253 Section 1611—Report on Protected Satellite Communications This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2018, on how specific protected satellite communications programs meet the requirements for resilience, mission assurance, and nu-clear command, control, and communication missions of the De-partment of Defense. Section 1612—Plan on Space Warfighting Readiness This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan that identifies joint mission-essential tasks for space as a warfighting domain. This section would further require the Sec-retary to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate, within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on any authorities asso-ciated with such plan that the Secretary determines require legisla-tive action. Section 1613—Study on Space-Based Radio Frequency Mapping This section would direct the Secretary of Defense and the Direc-tor of National Intelligence to jointly conduct a study on the capa-bilities of the private sector with respect to radio frequency map-ping and services for space-based electromagnetic collections. This section would also require the Secretary, in coordination with the Director, to provide a report on the study to the congressional de-fense committees and congressional intelligence committees, not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 1614—Plan To Provide Persistent Weather Imagery for United States Central Command This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to de-velop a plan to provide the U.S. Central Command with persistent weather imagery after 2025. The Secretary would be required to submit such plan to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019. SUBTITLEB—DEFENSEINTELLIGENCE ANDINTELLIGENCE–RELATEDACTIVITIESSection 1621—Role of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence This section would amend section 137 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the responsibilities of the Under Secretary of De-fense for Intelligence. Section 1622—Security Clearance for Dual Nationals This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to apply additional security reviews to dual citizens seeking positions that require access to highly classified information. The committee ex-pects that any additional security reviews will not further exacer-bate background investigation backlogs. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

254 Section 1623—Department of Defense Counterintelligence Polygraph Program This section would amend section 1564a of title 10, United States Code, by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to add dual citizens to Department of Defense counterintelligence polygraph program, for the purposes of assessing risk. Section 1624—Defense Intelligence Business Management Systems This section would require the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, to provide a report to the congressional defense com-mittees and the congressional intelligence committees, not later than March 1, 2019, outlining a plan to standardize the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process for the Military In-telligence Program (MIP) across the Department of Defense. This section would also direct the implementation of the plan not later than October 1, 2020. This section would prohibit the use of pro-gram elements that contain both MIP and non-MIP resources. The committee is concerned with the Department’s ability to provide sufficient oversight of the Military Intelligence Program budget. Section 1625—Modification to Annual Briefing on the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combat-ant Commands This section would require the Department of Defense to incor-porate into the existing report required by section 1626 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) data related to the number of requests for intelligence, surveillance, and recon-naissance capability and capacity submitted to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) by the combatant commanders, the number of requests formally validated by the CJCS, the quantity of validated requests tasked to the military services to fulfill, and the amount of validated requests actually fulfilled by the military services. Section 1626—Prohibition on the Availability of Funds for Depart-ment of Defense Assuming Background Investigation Mission for the Federal Government This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from as-suming the background investigation mission for the entire Federal Government before December 31, 2019. SUBTITLEC—CYBERSPACE–RELATEDMATTERSSection 1631—Amendments to Pilot Program Regarding Cyber Vulnerabilities of Department of Defense Critical Infrastructure This section would modify subsection (b) of section 1650 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to incorporate the Defense Digital Service (DDS) into pilot program authorities for identifying new, innovative meth-odologies or engineering approaches to evaluate cyber VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

255 vulnerabilities of Department of Defense critical infrastructure. The committee notes the success of the Defense Digital Service’s ‘‘Hack the Pentagon’’ program, and encourages the Department to use this or similar DDS activities to more rapidly and effectively improve the cybersecurity of government owned and operated facili-ties. Section 1632—Budget Display for Cyber Vulnerability Evaluations and Mitigation Activities for Major Weapon Systems of the De-partment of Defense This section would require that the justification materials sub-mitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense in support of the President’s annual budget request for the Department of Defense include a consolidated display for cyber vulnerability evaluations and mitigation activities for each major weapon system beginning in fiscal year 2021. The display for each major weapon system shall include the status of, funding required, and a description of planned activities to continue or complete the cyber vulnerability evaluations in accordance with section 1647 of the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), and necessary mitigation activities for the Future Years Defense Program. Section 1633—Transfer of Responsibility for the Department of Defense Information Network to United States Cyber Command This section would mandate that the Secretary of Defense trans-fer of all roles, missions, and responsibilities of the Commander, Joint Force Headquarters-Department of Defense Information Net-works from the Defense Information Support Agency to Com-mander, United States Cyber Command, by September 30, 2019. It would additionally require the Secretary of Defense to certify in writing to the congressional defense committees that such transfer shall not result in mission degradation. Section 1634—Pilot Program Authority To Enhance Cybersecurity and Resiliency of Critical Infrastructure This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in coordi-nation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide tech-nical personnel to the Department of Homeland Security to en-hance cooperation, collaboration, and unity of government efforts in support of the protection of critical infrastructure from cyber inci-dents and significant cyber incidents. Section 1635—Pilot Program on Regional Cyber Security Training Center for the Army National Guard This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot program to establish a National Guard cyber security training center for members of the Army National Guard. Section 1636—Procedures and Reporting Requirement on Cyberse-curity Breaches and Loss of Personally Identifiable Information This section would require the Secretary of Defense to promptly notify the congressional defense committees in the event of a sig-

256 nificant loss of personally identifiable information of civilian or uni-formed members of the Armed Forces in classified or unclassified formats. Section 1637—Cyber Institutes at the Senior Military Colleges This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to estab-lish a Cyber Institute at each of the senior military colleges. Section 1638—Study and Report on Reserve Component Cyber Civil Support Teams This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Sec-retary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the feasibility and advisability of establishing cyber civil support teams comprised of Reserve Component members, primarily operating under the command and control of the Governor of each State, to prepare for and respond to cyber incidents, cyber emergencies, and cyber at-tacks. The Secretaries concerned shall provide a report to the con-gressional defense committees, the Committee on Homeland Secu-rity of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Home-land Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the results of the study, to include their final determination on the fea-sibility of, advisability and necessity of establishing Reserve Com-ponent cyber civil support teams for each State, and if so, proposed legislation. SUBTITLED—NUCLEARFORCESSection 1641—Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Nuclear Weapons Council This section would amend section 179 of title 10, United States Code, to include the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering as a member of the Nuclear Weapons Council and make a technical correction to the title of the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment. Section 1642—Long-Range Standoff Weapon Requirements This section would amend section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) to en-able the Secretary of the Air Force to retire the conventionally armed AGM–86 cruise missile and require the Secretary to ensure that a conventionally armed follow-on air-launched cruise missile, the long-range standoff weapon, achieves initial operating capa-bility for conventional missions not later than 4 years after it achieves initial operating capability for nuclear missions. Section 1643—Acceleration of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program and Long-Range Standoff Weapon Program This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, to develop and implement plans to accelerate the de-velopment, procurement, and fielding of the Ground Based Stra-tegic Deterrent (GBSD) program and the Long-Range Standoff VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

257 cruise missile program. For GBSD, the plan would be required to recapitalize the full intercontinental ballistic missile system, with-out phasing or splitting the program. For both programs, the plans would be required to assess the benefits, risks, feasibility, costs, and cost savings of various options for accelerating the programs. The Under Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force, would be required to submit the plans to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the date of the enact-ment of this Act. The Commander of U.S. Strategic Command would be required, within 160 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to provide a briefing to the congressional defense com-mittees on the views of the Commander regarding the plans. Section 1644—Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes This section would authorize $9.8 million of the funds made available by this Act for Missile Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement of certain commercially available parts of interconti-nental ballistic missile fuzes, notwithstanding section 1502(a) of title 31, United States Code, under contracts entered into under section 1645(a) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). Section 1645—Prohibition on Reduction of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles of the United States This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from obli-gating or expending fiscal year 2019 funds to reduce the respon-siveness, alert level, or quantity of deployed U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles to less than 400. This section would provide an ex-ception to this prohibition for activities related to maintenance and sustainment and activities to ensure safety, security, or reliability. Section 1646—Extension of Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Mobile Variant of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Missile This section would amend section 1664 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to ex-tend, to fiscal year 2020, a prohibition on the availability of funds to retain the option for, or develop, a mobile variant of the Ground- Based Strategic Deterrent missile. Section 1647—Independent Study on Nuclear Weapons Launch- Under-Attack Option This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 30 days of enactment of this Act, to seek to enter into a contract with a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct a study on the potential benefits and risks of reducing the role of the launch-under-attack option in U.S. nuclear weapons planning. The Secretary would not be allowed to award such con-tract to an FFRDC for which the Air Force is the primary sponsor. This section would require the FFRDC to submit the report to the Secretary not later than 270 days after enactment of this Act, and VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

258 would require the Secretary to submit the report to the congres-sional defense committees not later than 30 days after receiving it. Section 1648—Extension of Annual Report on the Plan for the Nu-clear Weapons Stockpile, Nuclear Weapons Complex, Nuclear Weapons Delivery Systems, and Nuclear Weapons Command and Control System This section would amend section 1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) to ex-tend the expiration of a reporting requirement related to nuclear weapons from 2019 to 2022. Section 1649—Sense of Congress on Nuclear Posture of the United States This section would express a sense of Congress regarding the nu-clear posture of the United States. Section 1650—Sense of Congress on Extended Nuclear Deterrence in the Indo-Pacific Region This section would express the sense of Congress concerning the nuclear weapons program of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and U.S. extended deterrence commitments to Indo-Pacific region allies and partners. SUBTITLEE—MISSILEDEFENSEPROGRAMSSection 1661—Development of Persistent Space-Based Sensor Architecture This section would direct the Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in coordination with the Director of National Intel-ligence, the Commander of Air Force Space Command, and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to complete a plan and initiate development in fiscal year 2019 for a space-based missile defense sensor architecture. This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds to initiate the space-based missile defense layer program until the plan is submitted to Congress. This section would also amend section 1683 of the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to require the Director of the MDA to submit a report to the congressional de-fense committees and congressional intelligence committees by Jan-uary 31, 2019, on options to use other transactional authorities to accelerate development of this architecture. Section 1662—Boost Phase Ballistic Missile Defense This section would require the Director, Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to begin a program in fiscal year 2019 to develop boost phase intercept capabilities that are either air-launched or ship- based, cost effective, and that include a kinetic interceptor. This section would require an independent feasibility study to be con-ducted for delivering an initial or demonstrated boost phase capa-bility by calendar year 2021 using unmanned aerial vehicles and kinetic interceptors. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

259 This section would also provide support for directed energy ef-forts that would contribute to intercontinental ballistic missile boost phase intercept applications, and would direct MDA to con-tinue developing this capability in fiscal year 2019 and leverage di-rected energy work by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. This section would require the Director of MDA to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and to any other con-gressional defense committee upon request, not later than Feb-ruary 28, 2019, on the criteria and parameters used to measure progress of such program. Section 1663—Improvements to Research and Development and Acquisition Processes of Missile Defense Agency This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to transfer all research and development efforts and programs that have not yet reached milestone B to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) if they are planned to be incor-porated into the ballistic missile defense system or have explicit ap-plication for ballistic missile or hypersonic defense. This section would also require the Under Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 2019, on the pro-grams affected. Further, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees before any of MDA’s unique acquisition authorities are changed, and would prohibit changing the missile defense requirements generation process man-aged by U.S. Strategic Command. This section would also require that MDA make the quarter and fiscal year for execution of planned flight tests unclassified. Lastly, this section would require the Deputy Secretary of Defense to up-date membership of the Missile Defense Executive Board, and would require that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment be a standing member of the board and a co- chairman with respect to all decisions regarding acquisition and production milestone approvals, including other transaction author-ity contracts or transactions in excess of $500.0 million. Section 1664—Layered Defense of the United States Homeland This section would express the sense of Congress in support of the Department of Defense’s efforts to provide layered defense of the homeland, and would require the Director of the Missile De-fense Agency, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, and Com-mander of U.S. Pacific Command, to provide a briefing to the Com-mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Rep-resentatives by January 31, 2019, on options to increase layered protection of the U.S. homeland, to include the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska, from both the Democratic People’s Re-public of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

260 Section 1665—Testing of Redesigned Kill Vehicle Prior to Production This section would prohibit a lot production decision for the Re-designed Kill Vehicle until after a successful flight intercept test. This section would also provide a waiver for the Secretary of De-fense to make such a decision prior to a successful flight test, if the specified conditions are met. Section 1666—Requirements for Ballistic Missile Defense Capable Ships This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to include ballistic missile defense ship requirements in all future force struc-ture assessments. Section 1667—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Standard Missile-3 Block IB Missiles This section would authorize the Department of Defense to enter a multiyear procurement for Standard Missile-3 Block IB missiles. Section 1668—Limitation on Availability of Funds for Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor This section would limit obligation or expenditure of funds for the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor until the Secretary of the Army provides a report detailing the rationale for any delay should the acquisition strategy delivered in September 2018 push initial operating capability past 2023. This section would also re-quire the Secretary of the Army to ensure performance specifica-tions of the sensor specify certain requirements. Section 1669—Missile Defense Radar in Hawaii This section would express the sense of Congress on maintaining or accelerating the schedule for the homeland missile defense in Hawaii. This section would further require alignment of the In- Flight Interceptor Communications System Data Terminal (IDT) with homeland defense radar in Hawaii by requiring the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a certification that the contract for the homeland defense radar in Hawaii is on schedule to award the contract by not later than December 31, 2018, and that the radar and the IDT will reach initial operating capability not later than fiscal year 2023. Should the contract not be awarded by December 31, 2018, this section would direct the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate every other week until the date of award. This section would also require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide semi-annual briefings to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate on progress of the IDT and homeland missile defense radar in Hawaii, including updates on the environmental impact study process and acquisition of the radar and terminal.

261 Section 1670—Reports on Unfunded Priorities of the Missile Defense Agency This section would require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense, the Chair-man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the congressional defense committees on the unfunded priorities of the Missile Defense Agen-cy for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, within 10 days of the submission of the budget request to Congress for those fiscal years. Section 1671—Report on Ballistic Missile Defense This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on ballistic missile defense to the congressional defense com-mittees not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Section 1672—Sense of Congress on Missile and Rocket Defense Cooperation Between the United States and Israel This section would express the sense of Congress in support of the administration’s 10-year memorandum of understanding start-ing in fiscal year 2019 between the United States and the State of Israel on missile defense cooperation. SUBTITLEF—OTHERMATTERSSection 1681—Extension of Commission To Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Simi-lar Events This section would amend section 1691 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to ex-tend several deadlines associated with the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse At-tacks and Similar Events. Section 1682—Procurement of Ammonium Perchlorate and Other Chemicals for Use in Solid Rocket Motors This section would require the Secretary of the Army and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and In-dustrial Base Policy to jointly conduct a business case analysis of the Federal Government using a government-owned, contractor-op-erated model to ensure a robust domestic supply of specialty chemi-cals, including ammonium perchlorate, for use in solid rocket mo-tors. The Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary would be re-quired to submit this business case analysis to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2019. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to use, to the extent practicable, full and open competition in awarding a contract for the sale of ammonium perchlorate from retired solid rocket motors. The Secretary would be required to notify the con-gressional defense committees 30 days after the date of any such award that does not use full and open competition. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

262 Section 1683—Conventional Prompt Global Strike Hypersonic Capabilities This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees by November 30, 2018, a validated requirement for ground-, sea-, or air-launched (or a com-bination thereof) conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) hypersonic capabilities. This section would further require the Under Secretary of De-fense for Acquisition and Sustainment to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by November 30, 2018, on the plan to deliver a CPGS capability in accordance with section 1693 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91). The report would also include options with cost estimates for accelerating delivery for such system, policy deci-sions needed to employ the capabilities, and details with respect to the assessed level of ambiguity and misinterpretation of risks, and how those risks would be addressed. Section 1684—Report Regarding Industrial Base for Large Solid Rocket Motors This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments that the Under Secretary determines appropriate, to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees by April 15, 2019, on whether, and if so, how, the Fed-eral Government will sustain more than one supplier for large solid rocket motors. The report would be required to include an assess-ment of several matters, including risks, costs, and options for sus-taining more than one supplier by leveraging various programs of the Department of Defense and the broader Federal Government. Finally, this section would require the Under Secretary to provide a briefing to the appropriate congressional committees by Novem-ber 30, 2018, on the industrial base for large solid rocket motors. As it has expressed in the past, the committee continues to sup-port the GBSD program and efforts to recapitalize the nuclear triad. The committee continues to expect the Air Force and the De-partment of Defense to be mindful of the impacts GBSD and other large upcoming or ongoing programs have on the industrial base for large solid rocket motors in the near, medium, and longer terms. Due to the large volume of rocket motors that will be pro-cured for GBSD, this program may have a particularly large im-pact on the health and vitality of this key element of the U.S. in-dustrial base. The committee does not expect or encourage the GBSD program alone to be responsible for sustaining this indus-trial base, but does expect the Department of Defense to carefully consider its impacts, assessing risks, benefits, and costs. Section 1685—National Intelligence Estimate With Respect to Russian and Chinese Interference in Democratic Countries This section would direct the Director of National Intelligence to produce a National Intelligence Estimate on Russian and Chinese interference in democratic countries around the world. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

263 DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS PURPOSE Division B provides military construction, family housing, and re-lated authorities in support of the military departments during fis-cal year 2019. As recommended by the committee, division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of $10,332,478,000 for con-struction in support of the Active Forces, Reserve Components, de-fense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secu-rity infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2019. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW The Department of Defense requested $8,612,447,000 for military construction, $267,538,000 for Base Realignment and Closure ac-tivities, and $1,582,632,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $8,498,136,000 for military construction, $322,868,000 for Base Re-alignment and Closure activities, and $1,582,632,000 for family housing in fiscal year 2019. In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of $71,158,000 in undistributed savings from prior years. The Department of Defense also requested $921,420,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations military construction for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropria-tions of $921,420,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations military construction within title XXIX. Section 2001—Short Title This section would cite division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’’. Section 2002—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be Specified by Law This section would ensure that the authorizations provided in ti-tles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of this Act shall expire on October 1, 2023, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2024, whichever is later. Section 2003—Effective Date This section would provide that titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of this Act would take effect on October 1, 2018, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later. TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $1,011,768,000 for Army military construction and $707,169,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

264 of $1,095,868,000 for military construction and $707,169,000 for family housing for the Army in fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for several projects requested by the Department of the Army but not con-tained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These increases include: (1) $18.0 million for a Microgrid and Power Plant at Fort Camp-bell, Kentucky; (2) $16.5 million for Cantonment Area Roads at Fort Meade, Maryland; and (3) $9.6 million for a Supply Support Activity at Fort Hood, Texas. The committee also recommends the inclusion of $50.0 million for the Secretary of the Army, with prior notification to Congress, to carry out projects intended to enhance force protection and safety. The committee recommends the Secretary use this authority to al-leviate deficiencies in access control points, air traffic control tow-ers, fire stations, and anti-terrorism and force protection. Finally, the committee recommends a reduction of funding for a project contained in the budget request submitted by the Depart-ment of the Army for military construction and family housing. This reduction is: (1) $10.0 million for Command and Control Facility, Increment 4 at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. While the committee supports the require-ment for this incrementally funded project, the committee notes this is the second consecutive year the Army has reported cost in-creases associated with this project. The committee believes the De-partment did not provide sufficient justification for the most recent cost increase associated with this project. Therefore, the committee recommends $95.0 million, a reduction of $10.0 million, for this project. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Army construc-tion projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2102—Family Housing This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2019. Section 2103—Authorization of Appropriations, Army This section would authorize appropriations for Army military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

265 Section 2104—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects This section would extend the authorization of a certain project originally authorized by section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113–291) 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. TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $2,543,189,000 for Navy and Ma-rine Corps military construction and $419,117,000 for family hous-ing for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2,538,898,000 for military construction and $419,117,000 for family housing for the Navy and Marine Corps in fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for several projects requested by the Department of the Navy but not con-tained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These increases include: (1) $78.8 million for an Aircraft Paint Complex at Naval Base Coronado, California; (2) $75.6 million for X–Ray Wharf Improvements (Berth 2) at Naval Base Guam, Guam; (3) $51.3 million for 2nd Radio Battalion Complex, Phase 2 at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; (4) $31.9 million for a Welding and Body Repair Shop Facility at Marine Corps Base Albany, Georgia; (5) $22.3 million for Expeditionary Combat Skills Student Berth-ing at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi; (6) $21.8 million for Missile Magazines at Naval Weapons Sta-tion Seal Beach, California; (7) $19.7 million for a Consolidated Fire Station at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; (8) $19.5 million for LCS Mission Module Readiness Center at Naval Base San Diego, California; (9) $16.6 million for a Supply Warehouse SOI–West at Camp Pendleton, California; (10) $14.9 million for a Communications Line Ops to Admin at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California; (11) $14.8 million for Missile Motor Magazines and U&SI at Camp Navajo, Arizona (12) $13.1 million for Ammunition Supply Point Upgrade, Phase 2 at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia; (13) $10.0 million for Air Traffic Control Tower (North Field) at Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Florida; and (14) $6.3 million for

266 a Cryogenics Facility Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina. The committee also recommends the inclusion of $50.0 million for the Secretary of the Navy, with prior notification to Congress, to carry out projects intended to enhance force protection and safety. The committee recommends the Secretary use this authority to al-leviate deficiencies in access control points, air traffic control tow-ers, fire stations, and anti-terrorism and force protection. Finally, the committee recommends a reduction of funding for several projects contained in the budget request submitted by the Department of the Navy for military construction and family hous-ing. These reductions include: (1) $73.97 million for an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. The committee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $133.97 million included in the budget re-quest. However, the committee supports the authorization of appro-priations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. There-fore, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $60.0 million, a reduction of $73.97 million, for this project. (2) $71.287 million for a Machine Gun Range at Joint Region Marianas, Guam. The committee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $141.287 mil-lion included in the budget request. However, the committee sup-ports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the au-thorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee be-lieves that the Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $70.0 million, a reduction of $71.287 million, for this project. (3) $59.353 million for Pier 8 Replacement at Naval Base San Diego, California. The committee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $108.1 million included in the budget request. However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authoriza-tion for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee recommends an au-thorization of appropriation of $47.747 million, a reduction of $59.353 million, for this project. (4) $55.6 million for the Master Time Clocks & Operations Facil-ity at the Naval Observatory, District of Columbia. The committee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $115.6 million included in the budget re-quest. However, the committee supports the authorization of appro-priations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. There-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

267 fore, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $60.0 million, a reduction of $55.6 million, for this project. (5) $58.321 million for Dry Dock #1 Superflood Basin at the Portsmouth Navy Yard, Maine. The committee supports the re-quirement for this project and provides the full project authoriza-tion of $109.96 million included in the budget request. However, the committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the com-mittee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $51.639 million, a reduction of $58.321 million, for this project. (6) $51.86 million for Flightline Utility Modernization at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina. The committee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $106.86 million included in the budget re-quest. However, the committee supports the authorization of appro-priations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. There-fore, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $55.0 million, a reduction of $51.86 million, for this project. (7) $50.52 million for a D5 Missile Motor Receipt/Storage Facility at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The committee supports the require-ment for this project and provides the full project authorization of $105.52 million included in the budget request. However, the com-mittee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the com-mittee believes that Department of the Navy cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee rec-ommends an authorization of appropriation of $55.0 million, a re-duction of $50.52 million, for this project. (8) $21.98 million for a TBS Fire Station at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. The committee notes this project was author-ized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) and a subsequent appropriations was included for this project in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub-lic Law 115–141). The committee does not believe an additional au-thorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2019 is required for this project and therefore recommends a reduction of $21.98 million, for this project. (9) $8.0 million for Planning and Design. The committee rec-ommends an authorization of appropriation of $177.542 million, a reduction of $8.0 million, for planning and design activities. Aegis Ashore Poland Austere Housing The committee notes that the U.S. Navy has made the decision to maintain austere housing accommodations for the Aegis Ashore site in Redzikowo, Republic of Poland. This decision was made de-spite the committee’s concerns about the impact that these condi-tions could have on the quality of life for the sailors manning the site. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

268 Aegis Ashore Poland will provide critical missile defense capa-bility to defend our deployed forces, allies, partners, and friends from missile defense threats. The site will be manned 24/7 by sail-ors on rotating, unaccompanied tours. The Commander of Naval In-stallations Command determined that the Aegis Ashore site located in Redzikowo, Poland, warranted ‘‘austere’’ housing, and the Chief of Naval Operations approved this determination. Under this deter-mination, the housing accommodation guidelines will place up to 4 persons in each berthing room. The committee is concerned that the austere housing may have a negative impact on quality of life for the sailors manning the site as they execute a critical missile defense mission. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2018, on options to improve housing standards for sailors at the Aegis Ashore Poland site, including estimated costs and schedule for com-pleting the possible improvements. Infrastructure in Support of Submarine Training and Operational Requirements The committee supports the Navy’s development of the Colum-bia-class to serve as the Navy’s future ballistic missile submarine. While the first submarine delivery is projected outside of the cur-rent Future Years Defense Program, the committee believes it is important for infrastructure requirements to be properly identified, programmed, and synchronized to support the training and oper-ational requirements of this new class of submarine. The com-mittee notes that the military departments have struggled in the past to align military construction and infrastructure investments with delivery of new weapon systems. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to review the Navy’s current infrastruc-ture plans to ensure proper alignment with the Columbia-class pro-gram. Finally, the committee notes the importance of continuing to make appropriate investments in the infrastructure capabilities and capacity necessary to meet the training and certification of crews supporting the current fleet of Ohio-class submarines. Public Shipyard Infrastructure The committee acknowledges that it has received the report re-lated to Naval Shipyard Development Plans required by the com-mittee report (H. Rept. 115–200) accompanying the National De-fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. The report identified a number of infrastructure-related configuration, age, condition, and capacity issues that adversely impact nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier depot maintenance throughput. The Navy’s report identifies approximately $21.0 billion in infrastructure investments through 2040 that will be needed in the shipyards, to include $14.0 billion for construction to provide the optimal layout of facilities in order to increase production capacity, $4.0 billion for improvements of the dry docks to provide needed capability and capacity for fu-ture classes of ships, and $3.0 billion for capital equipment. The committee believes the public shipyards are key elements that sup-port our national defense. As such, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to plan, program, and budget appropriate in-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

269 vestments in the public shipyards to ensure those shipyards have the capabilities and capacity necessary to efficiently and effectively support the Navy fleet of today as well as the future. Red Hill Bulk Underground Fuel Storage Facility The committee is aware that the Navy and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) have entered into an enforceable agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Hawaii Depart-ment of Health known as an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). The AOC has opportunities for stakeholder involvement at every milestone. The committee notes that the EPA and Hawaii Department of Health regulate the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility and must approve work on AOC milestones includ-ing tank inspection, repair, and maintenance; tank upgrade alter-natives using Best Available Practicable Technology (BAPT); re-lease detection and tank tightness testing; corrosion and metal fa-tigue practices; investigation and remediation of releases; ground-water protection and evaluation; and a risk and vulnerability as-sessment. The committee encourages the Navy and DLA to con-tinue to work with Federal and State regulators to meet all compli-ance deadlines related to the AOC. Furthermore, the committee en-courages the Navy and DLA to consider increasing community out-reach efforts, to include holding more public events such as town halls, to keep the community and local stakeholders informed on milestones and compliance with the AOC. Furthermore, the committee continues to recognize the strategic value of the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility and the support it provides to U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) operations in peacetime and for contingencies. This facility is a national stra-tegic asset that supports combatant commander theater security requirements, contingency operations, and routine movements in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. Moving the fuel to another storage fa-cility in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region would have implications for the U.S. military force structure in the region. If the facility were closed, the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to support the National Defense Strategy would be significantly undermined. The com-mittee appreciates the ongoing dialogue with the Department of Defense and Department of the Navy on this topic while they con-tinue to comply with the requirements of the AOC. The committee will continue to provide congressional oversight on compliance with the AOC and the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution for the BAPT solutions and overall recapitalization plan for the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility. Tijuana Sewage Runoff The committee is aware that discharges of raw sewage into the Tijuana River have required Navy in-water military training in the vicinity of Coronado, California, to be temporarily shifted to an-other location due to health and safety concerns. In addition, sew-age spills and debris such as discarded tires often clog the river channel causing substantial erosion along the perimeter of the Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach (NOLFIB). The ero-sion has threatened the installation’s perimeter fencing and re-sulted in the Navy developing a project to reinforce the riverbank VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

270 and relocate portions of Navy fencing. The committee is aware that such discharges also cause secondary impacts to local Navy oper-ations, such as beach closures at Naval Base Coronado in areas that are prime nesting grounds for the Western Snowy Plover and the California Least Tern. Increased regulatory actions by State and Federal environmental protection agencies may be levied if the quality and safety of these species’ nesting areas are affected, which will negatively constrain military activities in these areas. The committee is concerned that future spills, discharges, and debris from the Tijuana River may have more significant impacts on the military installations and operations in the San Diego re-gion. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and other committees of jurisdiction in the House, not later than De-cember 1, 2018, detailing whether such spills, discharges, and de-bris have any impact on the national security interests of the United States; whether there is a need to avoid future spills to pre-vent impacts to training, installations, and operations; and what actions might be taken to resolve or mitigate these impacts. As nec-essary, the Secretary is encouraged to coordinate with the Depart-ment of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Depart-ment of Homeland Security (to include U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the U.S. Coast Guard), the International Boundary and Water Commission, and the Department of the Interior on this briefing requirement. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Navy construc-tion projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2202—Family Housing This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2019. Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to make improvements to existing units of family housing for fiscal year 2019. Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy This section would authorize appropriations for Navy military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.

271 TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $1,725,707,000 for Air Force mili-tary construction and $395,720,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropria-tions of $1,570,773,000 for military construction and $395,720,000 for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for several projects requested by the Department of the Air Force but not con-tained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These increases include: (1) $26.0 million for a Dormitory (168 personnel) at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas; (2) $26.0 million for a Composite Aircraft Antenna Calibration fa-cility at Hill Air Force Base, Utah; (3) $15.0 million for an AGE Facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona; (4) $14.2 million for Anti-Terrorism Perimeter Security/Entry Control Point at Rome Laboratory, New York; (5) $14.0 million for Add-Alter Joint Personnel Recovery Agency Command and Control Mission Support Facility at Fairchild Air Force Base–White Bluff, Washington; (6) $13.0 million for a Child Development Center at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; (7) $12.25 million for an Entrance Road and Gate Complex at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; (8) $9.0 million for a Main Gate at Patrick Air Force Base, Flor-ida; (9) $8.0 million for a Military Working Dog Facility at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland; and (10) $7.0 million for Wyoming Gate Upgrade for Anti-Terrorism Compliance at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. The committee also recommends the inclusion of $50.0 million for the Secretary of the Air Force, with prior notification to Congress, to carry out projects intended to enhance force protection and safe-ty. The committee recommends the Secretary use this authority to alleviate deficiencies in access control points, air traffic control tow-ers, fire stations, and anti-terrorism and force protection. Finally, the committee recommends reduction of funding for sev-eral projects contained in the budget request submitted by the De-partment of the Air Force for military construction and family housing. These reductions include: (1) $185.0 million for the MIT–Lincoln Laboratory (West Lab CSL/MIF) at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts. The com-mittee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $225.0 million included in the budget request. However, the committee supports the authorization of ap-propriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Depart-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

272 ment to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that Department of the Air Force cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. There-fore, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $40.0 million, a reduction of $185.0 million, for this project. (2) $55.1 million for the ADAL Intelligence Production Complex (NASIC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The budget re-quest included $116.1 million to construct the first phase of the construction of additional workspace for intelligence analysis and production to support the National Air and Space Intelligence Cen-ter. The committee supports the requirement for this project and is aware that a $66.0 million second phase is planned in a future program but is needed to support the full mission requirement. The committee believes it is more appropriate to authorize the full scope of a military construction requirement and provide incre-mental funding as opposed to bifurcating a construction project into separate phases. Therefore, the committee recommends combining the two phases into a single project and provides a total authoriza-tion of $182.0 million for the ADAL Intelligence Production Com-plex at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. However, the com-mittee supports the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the com-mittee believes that Department of the Air Force cannot fully ex-pend the funding in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee rec-ommends an authorization of appropriation of $61.0 million, a re-duction of $55.1 million, for this project. (3) $40.0 million for a Personnel Deployment Processing facility at Al Udeid, Qatar. The committee supports this requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in the base budget, a reduction of $40.0 million, for this project in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction. (4) $30.884 million for the Presidential Aircraft Recap Complex, Increment 2 at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland. The committee supports the requirement for this project, but notes that an addi-tional $24.884 million was provided in the Consolidated Appropria-tions Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141), which was signed into law after the budget request for fiscal year 2019 was submitted. In ad-dition, the committee notes an additional $6.0 million was included in the project for site preparation work that is no longer required. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of appro-priation of $123.116 million, a reduction of $30.884 million, for this project. (5) $30.4 million for Flightline Support facilities at Al Udeid, Qatar. The committee supports this requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in the base budget, a reduction of $30.4 million, for this project in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construc-tion. (6) $8.0 million for Planning and Design. The committee rec-ommends an authorization of appropriation of $187.577 million, a reduction of $8.0 million, for planning and design activities. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

273 Infrastructure Investments in Support of Research and Development Contracts The committee notes that section 2353 of title 10, United States Code, provides the secretary of a military department the authority to provide for the acquisition or construction of facilities and equip-ment by either the Government or the contractor that the secretary concerned determines to be necessary for the performance of a con-tract for research, development, or both. However, the committee notes that the Air Force Instruction (AFI) approval process cur-rently used to approve projects seeking to use this authority may not be appropriate for the circumstances at certain research facili-ties. Specifically, the committee notes that the current AFI–32 se-ries is used for traditional military construction projects, and does not adequately address construction funded through contracts for research, development, or both. Therefore, 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, may be more appropriate and necessary for the implementa-tion of this authority. The committee believes the Secretary of the Air Force should closely examine this issue and issue a revised AFI, as appropriate, that better supports the use of section 2353 of title 10, United States Code. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services 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 sup-porting AFIs to carry out such projects, and any plans to update the AFI to better utilize the existing authorities. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force con-struction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list con-tained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2302—Family Housing This section would authorize new construction and planning and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2019. Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to make improvements to existing units of family housing for fiscal year 2019. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

274 Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force mili-tary construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Section 2305—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Phased Project Authorized in Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, and 2017 This section would modify the authority provided by section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113–291), the authority pro-vided by section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B of Public Law 114–92), and the authority provided by section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328) to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modify the location of three previously authorized construction phases of the project. Section 2306—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2017 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328) and authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the scope and au-thorized cost of a previously authorized construction project. Section 2307—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–91) and authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the scope of a pre-viously authorized construction project. Section 2308—Additional Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2019 Projects This section would provide the Secretary of the Air Force addi-tional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 projects pursu-ant to the Defense Laboratory Modernization Pilot Program estab-lished by section 2803 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B of Public Law 114–92). Section 2309—Additional Authority To Carry Out Project at Travis Air Force Base, California, in Fiscal Year 2019 This section would provide specific authorization for a construc-tion project at Travis Air Force Base. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00304 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

275 TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $2,693,324,000 for defense agency military construction and $58,373,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropria-tions of $2,473,338,000 for military construction and $58,373,000 for family housing for defense agencies for fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee notes the budget request submitted by the De-partment of Defense for military construction and family housing included $150.0 million for the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program. The committee supports this program and en-courages the Department of Defense to continue to emphasize projects that will support increased resiliency of military installa-tions and mission critical functions. Therefore, the committee rec-ommends an authorization of appropriation of $165.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for this program. In addition, the committee recommends reduction of funding for several projects contained in the budget request submitted by the Department of Defense for military construction and family hous-ing. These reductions include: (1) $130.386 million for Kinnick High School at Yokosuka, Japan. The committee supports the requirement for this project and pro-vides the full project authorization of $170.386 million included in the budget request. However, the committee supports the author-ization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the authorization for ap-propriations. For this project, the committee believes that Depart-ment of Defense cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of ap-propriation of $40.0 million, a reduction of $130.386 million, for this project. (2) $44.0 million for Long Range Discrimination Radar System Complex, Phase 2 at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. The com-mittee supports the requirement for this project and provides the full project authorization of $174.0 million included in the budget request. However, the committee supports the authorization of ap-propriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Depart-ment to execute in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this project, the committee believes that Department of the De-fense cannot fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2019. There-fore, the committee recommends an authorization of appropriation of $130.0 million, a reduction of $44.0 million, for this project. (3) $32.6 million for Next NGA West (N2W) Complex, Phase 1, Increment 2 in St. Louis, Missouri. The committee supports the re-quirement for this project, but notes that an additional $25.0 mil-lion was provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115–141), which was signed into law after the budget request for fiscal year 2019 was submitted. In addition, the com-

276 mittee notes that the Office of Management and Budget has di-rected the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency not to award the project until receiving the full appropriation for both incre-ments, resulting in a cost increase of $7.6 million due to the delay in award. As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee believes such a policy is not in the best interest of the Department of De-fense or the taxpayer. Therefore, the committee recommends an au-thorization of appropriation of $181.0 million, a reduction of $32.6 million, for this project. (4) $10.0 million for an Ambulatory Care Center Addition/Alter-ation at RAF Croughton, United Kingdom. The committee notes this facility may be early-to-need based on an ongoing analysis of alternatives related to a separate military construction require-ment. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $10.0 million, for this project. (5) $10.0 million for Contingency Construction at Unspecified Worldwide Locations. The budget request included $10.0 million to support contingency construction requirements not previously au-thorized by law. While the committee notes this authority was used for a project in fiscal year 2018, unobligated balances remain avail-able in the military construction account and other authorities exist to construct projects that are in keeping with a national secu-rity interest. As such, the committee recommends no funds, a re-duction of $10.0 million, for this program. (6) $8.0 million for Missile Field #1 Expansion at Fort Greely, Alaska. The committee notes that the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Re-quirements Act, 2017 (Public Law 115–56) provided $200.0 million for the construction of an additional 20 silos at Missile Field #4. The committee questions why the requirement for the additional expansion of Missile Field #1 was not included in the previous re-quest. In addition, the committee notes that this project could be carried out as a minor military construction project and does not require specific authorization. Therefore, the committee rec-ommends no funds, a reduction of $8.0 million, for this project. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized defense agen-cies’ construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2402—Authorized Energy Conservation Projects This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy resilience and conservation projects. Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies This section would authorize appropriations for defense agencies’ military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of divi-sion D of this Act. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

277 Section 2404—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Projects This section would extend the authorization of certain projects originally authorized by section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113–291) 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. TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS SUMMARY The budget request contained $171,064,000 for the North Atlan-tic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP) for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of ap-propriations of $171,064,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Facilities and Infrastructure for U.S. Military Personnel at North Atlantic Treaty Organization Host Nation Bases The committee appreciates its ongoing and cooperative dialogue with the Department of Defense regarding efforts to improve infra-structure and facilities for U.S. military personnel stationed at North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) host nation bases. As NATO continues to strengthen and update its posture in response to increasing threats, the committee believes that the United States, NATO, and individual host nations must recapitalize facili-ties and infrastructure that support the NATO mission. Based on site visits and direct oversight, the committee is pleased that the Kingdom of Belgium has taken several unilateral steps and applied its own funding to improve the security posture at several bases hosting U.S. personnel. However, the committee is disappointed that longstanding plans to recapitalize certain facili-ties at Belgian bases have not yet been executed. The committee understands that, over a decade ago, NATO allocated common funding to construct several new, modern facilities in Belgium to replace inadequate, decades-old buildings. But, due to bureaucratic delays outside of the control of NATO and the U.S. Government, the new facilities have not yet been built and U.S. personnel con-tinue to work and operate in antiquated, substandard, and poten-tially unsafe facilities. The committee is aware of recent discus-sions between senior officials from the U.S. and Belgium on this issue, and is pleased that officials from both nations are working together to execute recapitalization plans. The committee encour-ages Belgium, NATO, and the U.S. Government to find and execute a near-term solution to this serious problem. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

278 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—NORTHATLANTICTREATYORGANIZATIONSECURITYINVESTMENTPROGRAMSection 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount not to exceed the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this Act and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a result of construction previously financed by the United States. Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO This section would authorize appropriations for the North Atlan-tic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—HOSTCOUNTRYIN-KINDCONTRIBUTIONSSection 2511—Republic of Korea Funded Construction Projects This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to accept 16 military construction projects totaling $518.6 million pursuant to agreement with the Republic of Korea for required in-kind con-tributions. TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES SUMMARY The budget request contained $467,395,000 for military construc-tion of National Guard and Reserve facilities for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $648,195,000 for military construction for fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for several projects requested by the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force for their reserve components but not contained in the budget request for military construction and family housing. These increases include: (1) $42.6 million for a Regional ISO Maintenance Hangar at Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts; (2) $24.0 million for a NORTHCOM—Construct Alter Facilities at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, Louisiana; (3) $24.0 million for an HC–130J Maintenance Hangar at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; (4) $23.0 million for an ECS Modified TEMF at Yakima Training Center, Washington; VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

279 (5) $13.0 million for Replace Fire Station at Mansfield Lahm Air-port, Ohio; (6) $11.0 million for an Aircraft Vehicle Storage Building at Lex-ington, Oklahoma; (7) $9.4 million for an Aerial Port Facility at Grissom Air Re-serve Base, Indiana; (8) $9.0 million for Construct Aircraft Apron at Great Falls Inter-national Airport, Montana; (9) $8.8 million for Relocate Main Gate at Youngstown Air Re-serve Station, Ohio; (10) $8.0 million for Construct Small Arms Range at Ricken-backer International Airport, Ohio; and (11) $8.0 million for Construct Small Arms Range at Duluth International Airport, Minnesota. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—PROJECTAUTHORIZATIONS ANDAUTHORIZATION OFAPPROPRIATIONSSection 2601—Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Army National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2602—Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Army Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the spe-cific projects authorized at each location. Section 2603—Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-in-stallation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each loca-tion. Section 2604—Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Air National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

280 Section 2605—Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force Re-serve construction projects for fiscal year 2019. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. Section 2606—Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and Reserve This section would authorize appropriations for the National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—OTHERMATTERSSection 2611—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2016 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B of Public Law 114–92) to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to modify the location of a previously authorized construction project. Section 2612—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2018 Project This section would modify the authority provided by section 2601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public Law 115–91) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the scope of a previously au-thorized construction project. Section 2613—Additional Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year 2019 Project This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to carry out a military construction project and acquire land at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the construction of a reserve training center. The Secretary may use available, unobligated Navy military construc-tion reserve funds for the project. TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY The budget request contained $267,538,000 for activities related to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $322,868,000 for BRAC activities.

281 ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Explanation of Funding Adjustments The committee notes the budget request submitted by the De-partment of Defense for activities related to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) included $322.868 million for the activities related to recommendations from the previous BRAC rounds. The com-mittee notes that additional resources may allow for the accelera-tion of certain activities. Therefore, the committee recommends ad-ditional authorization of appropriations of $18.11 million for Base Realignment and Closure—Army, $19.11 million for Base Realign-ment and Closure—Navy, and $18.11 million for Base Realignment and Closure—Air Force. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2701—Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realign-ment and Closure Activities Funded through Department of De-fense Base Closure Account This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing activities that are required to implement the base realignment and closure activities authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510), at the levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act. Section 2702—Additional Authority To Realign or Close Certain Military Installations This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with author-ity to close or realign a military installation if the Secretary re-ceives notification from the Governor of a State or territory that recommends the realignment or closure of a military installation within the Governor’s State or territory. Section 2703—Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round This section would affirm that nothing in this Act shall be con-strued to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure round. TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Allied Pilot Training on Advanced Pilot Trainer The committee understands that as the U.S. Air Force evaluates proposals for the Advanced Pilot Trainer (T–X) to make a final award in 2018, it will also be conducting an analysis of each under-graduate pilot training base to determine when the T–X will re-place the T–38C Talon currently in service at those bases. Under-graduate pilot training lays the foundation for all pilots that will fly advanced fighter aircraft, including pilots from allies and part-ners who will fly American fighter aircraft variants. It is critical VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

282 that pilots from allies and partners also receive opportunities to adequately prepare to fly these aircraft. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force, when evaluating locations for basing the T–X, consider the importance of locations that also provide training to allies and partners. Comptroller General Review of Utilities Privatization The committee continues to support the utility privatization pro-gram and other alternative financing arrangements to achieve greater efficiencies, improve reliability and resiliency of utility sys-tems, and reduce operating costs to the Department of Defense. While the Department has leveraged this authority for approxi-mately 20 years, the committee notes with concern the amount of time it can take to complete a utility privatization project, from ini-tial feasibility review by the military department to award of a con-tract to a utility provider. The committee is aware of instances where the process took more than 5 years from analysis to award. After two decades of experience with utilities privatization, the committee is concerned that procedures have not improved. The Department’s protracted process for awarding privatization con-tracts deters potential utility providers from considering such a contract. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review the Department’s utility privatization pro-gram and submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than Sep-tember 30, 2019, on his findings and recommendations. Specifi-cally, the report shall address the following for each military serv-ice: (1) the specific steps of the utility privatization process, the aver-age amount of time to complete each step, and the contributing fac-tors for the time each step takes; (2) the extent to which best practices have been identified and are shared between the services and the Defense Logistics Agency, and other stakeholders to improve the process; and (3) any recommendations to help improve the process as deter-mined to be appropriate by the Comptroller General. Core Sampling at Joint Base San Antonio The Committee notes that Joint Base San Antonio is served by a wastewater pipeline, known as W–6 that is subject to a Consent Decree with the Environmental Protection Agency requiring its re-placement. The local utility providing wastewater service is the San Antonio Water System, an agency of the City of San Antonio, Texas. This pipeline is critical to the functional wastewater system of Joint Base San Antonio, the City of San Antonio, and Bexar County. The Committee believes that the timely replacement of the pipeline is in the best interests of both Joint Base San Antonio and the community. The proposed route of the replacement pipeline would traverse a part of the base that contains capped and closed landfills with uncertain contents. The committee understands that the Air Force and the City are currently at an impasse on the li-ability for any contamination discovered during site investigations of the proposed pipeline route and during construction and subse-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

283 quent maintenance and operation of a new pipeline. Given the haz-ards posed by the condition of the existing pipeline to the popu-lation on Joint Base San Antonio, and the legal requirements for replacing the pipeline under the Consent Decree, the Committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to work with the City of San Antonio toward an amicable and rapid resolution. To establish an estimate of liability that will allow informed deci-sions, the Committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct core sampling along the proposed route of the new pipe to determine if any regulated or hazardous substances are present in the soil along the proposed route and the concentrations of any such substances. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee, not later than September 30, 2018, on the whether or not the Air Force performed such core sampling and the results of the core sampling performed. If the Air Force did not perform such core sampling, the briefing shall include a detailed explanation for the reasons such sampling was not performed. At the time of the briefing, the Secretary should also provide an update on the status of negotiations with the San Antonio Water System and proposed way-ahead for the site investigations and construction of the W–6 replacement pipeline. Department of Defense Lands Leases in Hawaii The Department of Defense has multiple land leases in Hawaii that require renegotiation and renewal within the next 15 years, including the Pohakuloa Training Area, Kahuku Training Area, Makua Military Reservation, and Poamoho Training Area. There-fore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the House Committee on Armed Services on efforts to renew Depart-ment of Defense leases in Hawaii by July 31, 2018. Incremental Funding of Military Construction Projects As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee continues to be-lieve in the value and appropriateness of incrementally authorizing appropriations for certain military construction projects. The com-mittee notes that the Office of Management and Budget has di-rected the Department of Defense to not plan, program, or request incremental funded projects. However, the committee believes that allowing the Department to seek incremental funding for certain projects ensures more stability and predictability in the planning process, reduces acquisition costs, and enables the Department to execute more work in place on other infrastructure requirements in the fiscal year. Furthermore, the committee believes that incre-mental funding of large and complex military construction projects ensures continuous oversight and opportunities to adjust the au-thorization of appropriation level for projects should issues arise or requirements change over the course of construction. To date, the committee is not aware of any example where a military construc-tion project has been left with inadequate funding or has not been executable as a result of an incremental funding approach. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to work with the House Com-mittee on Armed Services, and the other appropriate congressional VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

284 oversight committees, to develop a framework that enables the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution of incrementally funded military construction projects. Naval Academy Dairy Farm The committee is aware the Secretary of the Navy is currently prohibited by section 6976 of title 10, United States Code from dis-posing of 875 acres of real property containing the Naval Academy dairy farm located in Gambrills, Maryland. The committee notes that this prohibition has been in place for more than twenty years and believes that it should be reexamined. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the House Armed Services Committee, not later than September 30, 2018, regarding the real property containing the Naval Academy dairy farm. At minimum, the report shall address the current use and activities taking place on the property, an assessment of the continued need for the property to be retained by the Navy, and an evaluation of potential future uses for the property, including con-veyance to a local county or municipality. In addition, the report should address how the Navy would continue supporting the func-tions and activities that benefit from the proceeds of current leases of the real property. Operational Energy Technologies The committee is aware of a variety of technologies that may im-prove 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 gen-eration, distribution, and storage in deployed environments, and in-crease the range and capability of tactical vehicles. The committee is supportive of these efforts and encourages the Department of De-fense 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 De-fense to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Com-mittee, not later than March 1, 2019, that outlines steps the De-partment is taking, to include resourcing and timelines for matura-tion of operational energy technologies, to transition such tech-nologies to full scale demonstrations and commercial production. Privatization of On-Base Lodging The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Secretary of Defense to make Department of Defense business operations more efficient. As the Secretary of Defense noted in his February 2017 Memorandum, this efficiency will free up resources to enable ‘‘a larger, more capable and more lethal Joint force.’’ One of the ways to accomplish this is to find savings in areas that may no longer merit individual military department approaches, particularly in non-core functions. To that end, the committee notes that the Army has privatized its on-base lodging operations and understands this effort has resulted in upgraded on-base lodging facilities, an im-proved experience for the military traveler, annual savings for the Army, and a self-sustaining lodging program. The committee is VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

285 aware that the Department is considering options to consolidate and privatize Navy and Air Force on-base lodging. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2019, on how the Navy and Air Force will ensure holistic sustainability and affordability of their lodging programs. At a minimum, the briefing shall include details on capital investment needs to correct facility configuration and capacity deficiencies, provision of adequate long- term sustainment of facilities, and the implementation of best prac-tices that will maximize reductions in government manpower and operational costs for Navy and Air Force on-base lodging programs. Relocation of Defense Non-Tactical Generator and Rail Equipment Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah The committee is aware of the Department of the Army’s decision to relocate the Defense Non-Tactical Generator and Rail Equip-ment Center (DGRC) from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. The committee is also aware the Utah De-partment of Transportation plans to construct a new interchange at the current site of the DGRC and State funding is programmed in 2022. The committee understands that the Army, Air Force, and State of Utah must undertake a number of actions before the DGRC parcel may be transferred and encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to begin discussions as soon as practicable with the Utah Department of Transportation to ensure the orderly transfer of the property by 2022. Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to submit a re-port to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than January 31, 2019, on the detailed plan for executing the relocation of the DGRC and all ac-tions necessary to ultimately transfer property to the Utah Depart-ment of Transportation. The report shall provide a detailed plan and timeline to relocate this mission to Anniston Army Depot and all necessary construction or renovation of facilities at Anniston Army Depot. The report should also include all actions necessary to enable transfer of Air Force property on Hill Air Force Base to the Utah Department of Transportation, to include the demolition of facilities, the construction or renovation of facilities, environ-mental remediation required, funding programmed to facilitate the transfer of the property to the Utah Department of Transportation, and any constraints to the execution of the transfer of the property by 2022. Wireless Communications on Base The committee recognizes that some military installations are lo-cated in rural areas with limited wireless communications cov-erage. There are also installations that cover such a large amount of land that communications infrastructure outside the fence line is unable to provide consistent or optimal service to portions of the installation. The committee believes that wireless communications coverage on military installations not only provide valuable support for the quality of life for service members and their families, but

286 also can support military requirements related to force protection, logistics, training, or operations. The committee is aware that the Navy is considering using real estate agreements, such as ease-ments and enhanced use leases, to allow commercial industry to develop communications infrastructure on its installations to im-prove service and connectivity. The committee is aware that the Army and Air Force have also expressed a desire to improve wire-less communications capabilities on military installations but may not be taking the same approach as the Navy. Therefore, the com-mittee directs the service secretaries to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee, not later than September 30, 2018, on each of the military departments’ requirements, plans, and timelines for improving communications coverage and capabili-ties on its installations. Yucca Mountain Pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department of Energy (DOE) plans to permanently dispose of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, located on DOE’s Nevada Na-tional Security Site (NNSS), which would require transportation of nuclear waste to the repository. The committee has been briefed on DOE’s proposed route to transport the waste to Yucca Mountain, and understands the route is located near DOE activities at NNSS and Department of Defense (DOD) activities at the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). In 2017, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson stated that, ‘‘if Yucca Mountain becomes a storage area it needs to operate without impacting the ability of the coun-try to defend itself,’’ and, ‘‘there is no route across the range that would not impact testing and training.’’ Documents provided to the committee by the Air Force indicate that although the proposed route is located outside of the boundaries of NTTR, several sections of the route would border the range, and this siting of the rail line was confirmed in a DOE Record of Decision and Environmental Im-pact Statement. The NTTR provides the largest air and ground military training space in the contiguous United States, free from commercial air-craft interference, and stores 75 percent of stateside Air Force live munitions. The NNSS provides DOE and other government agen-cies unique, high-hazard testing environments. Both facilities are national assets. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, to submit a report to the congres-sional defense committees, not later than January 15, 2019, de-scribing any impacts that the Yucca Mountain Project would have on DOD and DOE activities at NNSS, NTTR, and any other de-fense facilities in proximity to Yucca Mountain or the proposed transportation route. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

287 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—MILITARYCONSTRUCTIONPROGRAM ANDMILITARYFAMILYHOUSINGSection 2801—Commercial Construction Standards for Facilities on Leased Property This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the use of commercial construction standards when a private developer is constructing facilities on military land for commercial use under an enhanced use lease agreement. Section 2802—Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority To Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Out-side the United States This section would provide continued authority for the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated for operation and mainte-nance for military construction to meet temporary operational re-quirements during a time of declared war, national emergency, or contingency operation through the end of fiscal year 2019. Section 2803—Small Business Set-Aside for Contracts for Architectural and Engineering Services and Construction Design This section would amend section 2855 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the threshold for small business set-asides for ar-chitectural and engineering services and construction design con-tracts from $300,000 to $1.0 million. Section 2804—Authority To Obtain Architectural and Engineering Services and Construction Design for Defense Laboratory Mod-ernization Program This section would amend section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to clar-ify that the Secretary of the military department concerned may use amounts available for research, development, testing, and eval-uation funding to obtain architectural and engineering services to carry out a construction project under this authority. This section would also extend the period of the Defense Laboratory Moderniza-tion Pilot Program until October 1, 2023. Section 2805—Repeal of Limitation on Certain Guam Project This section would amend section 2879 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) by re-pealing the requirement that the Secretary of the Navy award five military construction projects prior to awarding the ‘‘Replace An-dersen Housing Phase II’’ project. Section 2806—Enhancing Force Protection and Safety on Military Installations This section would authorize the Secretaries of the military de-partments to carry out military construction projects to enhance force protection and safety on military installations. This section would require a notification to the congressional defense commit-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

288 tees prior to obligating or expending funds to carry out a project under this authority. Section 2807—Limitation on Use of Funds for Acquisition of Furnished Energy for New Medical Center in Germany This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of any military department from using funds to enter into a con-tract for the acquisition of energy for the proposed Rhine Ordnance Barracks Army Medical Center until the Secretary of Defense sub-mits certain certifications regarding the source of energy supply and the design of the medical center. Section 2808—Treatment of Leases of Non-Excess Property Entered Into With Insured Depository Institutions This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to direct the Secretary concerned to accept financial services provided by an insured depository institution to service members and employees of the Department of Defense as sufficient in-kind consideration to cover all lease, services, and utilities costs as-sessed with regard to the leased property. SUBTITLEB—REALPROPERTY ANDFACILITIESADMINISTRATIONSection 2811—Optional Participation in Collection of Information on Unutilized and Underutilized Military Installation Properties Available for Homeless Assistance This provision would amend section 11411 of title 42, United States Code, to provide the Department of Defense discretion on the reporting of surplus facilities for possible assistance for the homeless. Since most facilities owned by the Department require credentialed access, few if any facilities have been transferred for adaptive reuse by homeless organizations. Section 2812—Force Structure Plans and Infrastructure Capabilities Necessary To Support the Force Structure This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a force structure plan for each military service not later than Feb-ruary 3, 2021, accompanied by a categorical model of installation capabilities required to support force structure and an assessment of the adequacy of the Department of Defense’s existing infrastruc-ture inventory to support force structure plans. Section 2813—Retrofitting Existing Windows in Military Family Housing Units To Be Equipped With Fall Prevention Devices This section would amend section 2879 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to create a grant program from which privatized housing entities and military installations may request funds to retrofit or install win-dow fall prevention devices in privatized and military-owned hous-ing. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

289 Section 2814—Updating Prohibition on Use of Certain Assessment of Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations to Su-persede Funding of Certain Projects This section would freeze a portion of the Public Schools on Mili-tary Installations List required in the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to ensure that the original top 38 schools do not lose priority due to any reassess-ment. SUBTITLEC—LANDCONVEYANCESSection 2821—Authority for Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction Over Certain Lands, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, California, and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to trans-fer acquired State and privately owned lands to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion as public lands withdrawn and reserved by section 2941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fis-cal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). This section would also allow the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain parcels of land at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma to the Secretary of the Navy. Section 2822—Public Inventory of Guam Land Parcels for Transfer to Government of Guam This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to establish, maintain, and regularly update an inventory of real property lo-cated on Guam owned by the U.S. Government and administered by the Department of the Navy which the Secretary of the Navy expects to transfer to the Government of Guam. Such inventory shall be available online and accessible to the public and include specific information about each parcel of land included in the in-ventory. This section would also establish a formal process for the Governor of Guam to petition the Secretary of the Navy to add par-cels to the inventory. Section 2823—Land Conveyance, Naval Academy Dairy Farm, Gambrills, Maryland This section would authorize conveyance of 40 acres of land from the United States Naval Academy Dairy Farm to Anne Arundel County, Maryland, contingent on certain conditions and consider-ations. Section 2824—Technical Correction of Description of Limestone Hills Training Area Land Withdrawal and Reservation, Montana This section would amend section 2931 of the Military Construc-tion Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113–66) to adjust the acreage of withdrawn public land in Broadwater County, Montana. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

290 Section 2825—Land Conveyance, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Rich County, Utah This section would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer ownership of 80 acres of public land to the Utah State University Research Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. SUBTITLED—MILITARYLANDWITHDRAWALSSection 2831—Indefinite Duration of Certain Military Land With-drawals and Reservations and Improved Management of With-drawn and Reserved Lands This section would amend statutory authority for several mili-tary land withdrawals to extend the withdrawals indefinitely. This section would also amend section 670a of title 16, United States Code, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the concerned Secretary of a military department to continuously review such withdrawals and would establish a public comment process regard-ing the resource management plans and military use of such lands. Section 2832—Designation of Potential Wilderness Area This section would allow the Secretary of the Interior to permit a microwave communications site on one acre of land within a fed-erally protected wilderness area. SUBTITLEE—OTHERMATTERSSection 2841—Defense Community Infrastructure Program This section would amend section 2391 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make grants, con-clude cooperative agreements, and supplement funds available under other Federal programs to assist States and local govern-ments in addressing deficiencies in community infrastructure projects or facilities which are located outside of military installa-tions but which support military installations. Section 2842—Restrictions on Use of Funds for Development of Public Infrastructure in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Is-lands This section would require the Secretary of Defense to convene an Economic Adjustment Committee meeting and describe assist-ance necessary to support changes in Department of Defense activi-ties in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in a re-port to the congressional defense committees. This section would also prohibit the Department of Defense from carrying out any grant, transfer, cooperative agreement, or supplemental funding that will result in the development of public infrastructure unless such project is included in the Economic Adjustment Committee re-port and specifically authorized by law. Section 2843—Study and Report on Coleman Bridge, York River, Virginia This section would require the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, to review the feasibility of including the George P. Cole-

291 man Memorial Bridge near Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Vir-ginia, in the Strategic Highways Network and to report his find-ings to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Section 2844—Certifications Required Prior to Transfer of Certain Veterans Memorial Object This section would amend section 2864 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91); it would provide language clarifying the certification requirement and require a report prior to the return of certain veterans memorial objects. TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY The budget request contained $921,420,000 for Overseas Contin-gency Operations military construction for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $921,420,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations military con-struction for fiscal year 2019. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST EXPLANATION OFFUNDINGADJUSTMENTSThe committee recommends reduction of funding for a project contained in the Overseas Contingency Operations budget request submitted by the Department of Defense for military construction. This reduction is: (1) $69.0 million for a High Value Detention Facility at Guanta-namo Bay, Cuba. The Department of Defense did not provide the committee sufficient justification for the need to construct a new, permanent facility with increased capacity and capabilities. In ad-dition, the committee notes that while the current facility may not be ideally configured, it is still capable of meeting current and fore-seeable detention requirements. Therefore, the committee rec-ommends no funds, a reduction of $69.0 million, for this project. As noted earlier in this report, the committee recommended a re-duction in funding for several projects included in the base budget request in order to transfer them to the Overseas Contingency Op-erations title of this Act. Therefore, the committee recommends a commensurate increase in the Overseas Contingency Operations account to support these projects. Specifically, these projects in-clude: (1) $40.0 million for a Personnel Deployment Processing facility at Al Udeid, Qatar; and (2) $30.4 million for Flightline Support facilities at Al Udeid, Qatar. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

292 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2901—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of certain authorized Army construction projects for fiscal year 2019. These projects represent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at these locations. Section 2902—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized Navy construc-tion projects for fiscal year 2019. These projects represent a bind-ing list of the specific projects authorized at these locations. Section 2903—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of certain authorized Air Force construction projects for fiscal year 2019. These projects rep-resent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at these lo-cations. Section 2904—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects This section would contain the list of authorized defense agen-cies’ construction projects for fiscal year 2019. These projects rep-resent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at these lo-cations. Section 2905—Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize appropriations for Overseas Contin-gency Operations military construction at the levels identified in section 4602 of division D. Section 2906—Restrictions on Use of Funds for Planning and Design Costs of European Deterrence Initiative Projects This section would limit the ability of the secretaries concerned from using any of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for planning and design of military construction projects requested under the European Deterrence Initiative until the Secretary of De-fense submits a list of the military construction projects to support the European Deterrence Initiative that are anticipated during fis-cal year 2019 and at least the four succeeding fiscal years. The committee notes its support for the European Deterrence Initiative and the military construction program that supports it. However, the committee believes that it is important for Congress to have a clear understanding of the overall military construction plan for Europe and the construction projects that will be supported with this planning and design funding. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

293 DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NA-TIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS OVERVIEW The budget request for fiscal year 2019 contained $21.60 billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee recommends $21.96 billion, an increase of $357.0 million to the budget request. ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST NATIONALNUCLEARSECURITYADMINISTRATIONOverview The budget request for fiscal year 2019 contained $15.09 billion for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The committee recommends $15.40 billion, an increase of $307.0 million to the budget request. Weapons Activities Defense Nuclear Security and related construction projects The budget request contained $690.6 million for Defense Nuclear Security at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This funding supports day-to-day security operations across the nu-clear security enterprise, as well as sustainment and recapitaliza-tion of physical security infrastructure and equipment. This does not include certain major line item construction projects that would result in significant security improvements. The committee continues to emphasize the need for sustained and focused NNSA and Department of Energy leadership attention on physical security efforts within the nuclear security enterprise. The security certifications required by section 2657 of title 50, United States Code, were intended to ensure the Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Secretary of Energy focus significant per-sonal attention on the issue and are accountable for both progress and problems. Further, the congressionally mandated Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response, and Testing, the Security Management Improvement Plan, and Security Infrastructure Revi-talization Program have helped provide a solid knowledge base of physical security expertise and clear direction for a program that must be continuously vigilant and improving. The committee com-mends these steps, but continues to seek further progress on two major line item construction projects that will support both im-proved security and accomplishment of NNSA’s mission deliverables: the West End Protected Area Reduction Project at the Y–12 National Security Complex, and the Material Staging Facility at the Pantex Plant. The committee recommends $701.6 million for Defense Nuclear Security, an increase of $11.0 million to the budget request, $9.0 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

294 million for the West End Protected Area Reduction project, and $24.0 million for the Material Staging Facility. Directed Stockpile Work The budget request included $4.67 billion for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), including life extension programs (LEP) and major al-terations, stockpile systems, stockpile services, and strategic mate-rials. The committee continues to believe the National Nuclear Se-curity Administration (NNSA) must emphasize these programs and capabilities that directly support and enable NNSA’s deliverables to the Department of Defense. The W76–1 LEP will soon complete production and its successful delivery to the Navy is a notable achievement. This weapon will soon comprise approximately 70 percent of the nation’s operation-ally deployed strategic warheads. Production engineering on the B61–12 LEP continues, and the committee will closely oversee ca-pacity and throughput challenges to ensure it stays on track for de-livery of a first production unit and associated capabilities by De-cember 2019. This weapon will be both a tangible and credible ex-tended deterrent for U.S. allies, as well as form an important com-ponent of the United States’ own strategic deterrent. The W88 ALT 370, with its refresh of components and high explosives, will produce a modernized warhead that will ensure its reliability for decades. And the W80–4 LEP will produce a warhead for the future long-range standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, which supports the air leg of the strategic triad. The committee will continue to track alignment between the W80–4 LEP and the LRSO program itself. Finally, the W76–2 program will produce a lower-yield submarine- launched ballistic missile warhead, as proposed by the 2018 Nu-clear Posture Review. Aligning initial production of the W76–2 with the end of production of the W76–1 will help minimize costs and ensure timely production and deployment. The committee recommends $4.66 billion for Directed Stockpile Work, a decrease of $8.0 million to the budget request. Domestic uranium The committee understands that recent market trends, foreign competition, and other factors have had significant negative im-pacts on the nation’s domestic uranium industry. For instance, the domestic uranium mining industry has diminished such that in re-cent years domestic suppliers provide less than 5 percent of U.S. demand for uranium. Additionally, all domestically owned uranium enrichment facilities have been closed. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is con-ducting an analysis of alternatives (AOA), due for completion in 2020, regarding if and how to reconstitute a domestic uranium en-richment capability for national security purposes. In its review of NNSA’s AOA guidance, the Comptroller General of the United States found that NNSA’s mission needs statement was limited in scope, showed preference toward a particular solution, and did not include the potential for enrichment facilities that meet multiple mission needs beyond just tritium production. The Comptroller General also found that NNSA’s cost estimates for two potential enrichment technologies, which ranged from $3.8 billion to $14.0 billion depending on the technology and assumptions, only partially VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

295 or minimally met best practice standards for being comprehensive, credible, well-documented, and accurate. The committee also notes that policy changes must be considered as part of the AOA, including changes that would enable the cur-rent supply of unobligated fuel to last longer and changes that would revise domestic policies or international agreements regard-ing limitations on the use of obligated fuel. The committee believes this AOA must be comprehensive and data-driven, and expects NNSA to update the mission needs statement and AOA guidance to address the Government Accountability Office’s recommenda-tions. While the AOA is underway, the committee believes NNSA must be mindful of ensuring U.S. technical expertise for uranium does not atrophy and that both mature and less-mature technology op-tions continue to be advanced. The committee also believes NNSA and the wider Federal Government must be mindful of any short- or long-term implications for national security if the domestic ura-nium industry as a whole is moribund. To enable its oversight of these issues, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with appro-priate officials from the Department of Energy and other agencies, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by November 30, 2018, on the state of the domestic uranium industry in general, its impacts on national security, and the status of NNSA’s ongoing analysis of alternatives related to domestic uranium enrichment. Such briefing should include: (1) an assessment of commercial market trends, Department of Energy excess uranium sales, Federal regulations and policies, en-richment capacity, and foreign imports; (2) details on how NNSA is sustaining technical expertise in do-mestically owned uranium enrichment technologies while its anal-ysis of alternatives is ongoing and no domestically owned source of enriched uranium is operational; (3) NNSA’s plans to revise and clarify the mission needs state-ment, as recommended by the Comptroller General; (4) how NNSA intends to consider a comprehensive range of op-tions in the AOA, including policy changes such as reexamining the mixture of obligated and unobligated fuel used in reactors in pro-portion to tritium production and energy production, and revisions regarding limitations on the use of obligated fuel; (5) how NNSA will ensure that cost estimates of all options are consistent with best practices, and how the cost estimates are aligned with the updated scope of need. Fusion technology pathways The committee is aware of several different paths that may, some day, lead to viable fusion-based energy production and believes such a breakthrough would have extraordinary implications for en-ergy security, national security, and the world in general. The com-mittee is also cognizant that fusion-based energy production has been a long-sought outcome of the high energy density physics com-munity, but has yet to yield anticipated results. The committee un-derstands that tokamak technology is of particular interest in the

296 scientific community for its potential to achieve viability for fusion energy production. To better understand the state of science and technology develop-ment in this field, the committee directs the Administrator for Nu-clear Security, in coordination with the directors of appropriate na-tional laboratories and appropriate officials of the Department of Energy, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by February 1, 2019, on fusion en-ergy technology development. Such briefing should review and as-sess all potential fusion technology paths, particularly technologies related to the tokamaks and the use of divertor test facilities to better understand remaining challenges for dealing with hot plas-ma exhaust. In addition, the briefing should assess fusion tech-nology paths, their viability as a potential future power source, re-maining risks and challenges associated with such technologies, any complementary research and development that is needed or on-going, any implications of such research and technologies for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and any other matters the Administrator determines appropriate to en-hance the committee’s oversight and understanding. Inertial Confinement Fusion The budget request included $418.9 million for the Inertial Con-finement Fusion (ICF) Ignition and High Yield program at the Na-tional Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In the absence of nuclear explosive testing, this program provides for specialized expertise and unique facilities to better understand high energy density science and the operation of nuclear weapons. The budget request proposed a significant decrease in funding for ICF, including initiation of ‘‘a three-year ramp-down in NNSA’s fi-nancial commitment to . . . the Omega Laser Facility, resulting in the cessation of the financial assistance agreement,’’ and reductions in funding for both ignition and non-ignition experiments at the National Ignition Facility. The committee is encouraged by NNSA’s proposal to rebalance and prioritize funding for programs and capabilities that directly support NNSA’s deliverables to the Department of Defense, recapi-talize NNSA’s aging infrastructure, and prepare for an uncertain future. The committee also notes that the ICF program has, so far, failed to achieve fusion ignition, an outcome that was long-prom-ised on specific timelines. However, the committee also believes that NNSA must carefully consider the impacts of its deep pro-posed reduction to the ICF program, particularly on the long-term pipeline of expertise and the sustainment of unique capabilities upon which certification of the U.S. nuclear stockpile has depended since the cessation of nuclear explosive testing. To better understand these impacts and deliverables, the com-mittee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by September 1, 2018, on NNSA’s plans for the ICF program. Such briefing should include the im-pacts of the proposed budget reductions, any risks and risk mitiga-tion options, the sustainability of facilities and infrastructure re-lated to the ICF program, plans for maintaining a robust pipeline of experts in high energy density science and ICF at NNSA, clear VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

297 criteria and milestones for measuring ICF program performance against measurable goals, an evaluation of ICF lines of efforts against stated goals, and such other matters as the Administrator determines relevant. The committee recommends $467.9 million, an increase of $49.0 million, for the ICF program. Infrastructure The budget request includes $540.7 million for Recapitalization and $365.0 million for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities. These programs fund efforts to reduce the large backlog of deferred main-tenance across the nuclear security enterprise and preventative maintenance activities. Combined, these programs and the large line item construction projects are critical to arresting and revers-ing the declining state of the National Nuclear Security Adminis-tration’s (NNSA) infrastructure. Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) directed the Administrator for Nu-clear Security to establish the Infrastructure Modernization Initia-tive (IMI) with a goal of reducing the backlog of deferred mainte-nance and repair needs at NNSA by 30 percent by 2025. The com-mittee believes that achieving this goal is critical to accomplishing NNSA’s national security mission and to the safety and well-being of NNSA’s workforce. Section 3111 and section 3119 of Public Law 115–91 also provided the Administrator new and enhanced statu-tory authorities to accelerate and streamline action on these infra-structure problems. The committee agrees with NNSA’s view that infrastructure risk is becoming safety risk and mission risk and will closely monitor NNSA’s progress in implementing the IMI and leveraging its associated authorities. The committee continues to note the importance of adequately resourcing preventative and sus-taining maintenance to extend the life and increase the safety of its facilities. The committee encourages the Administrator to work closely with Congress as it prepares and executes the long-term NNSA infrastructure strategy. The committee recommends $611.7 million for Recapitalization, an increase of $71.0 million to the budget request, and $404.0 mil-lion for Maintenance and Repair of Facilities, an increase of $39.0 million to the budget request. Lithium and tritium The committee continues to conduct oversight of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) approach to managing and ensuring a sustainable supply of key strategic materials, and recognizes NNSA’s efforts to bring coherency and stability to what were previously scattered and decentralized efforts. The committee believes that a clear, long-term plan to ensure access to these ma-terials is important for the credibility of the nuclear deterrent. Although NNSA’s plans for all of its strategic materials would benefit from further clarification and refinement, the committee in particular desires increased detail and clarity on NNSA’s plans with regard to tritium and lithium. As the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) states, ‘‘U.S. production of tritium . . . is now insufficient to meet the forthcoming U.S. nuclear force sustainment demands, or to hedge against unforeseen developments. Programs are planned, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

298 but not yet fully funded, to ease these critical production short-falls.’’ And as the NPR states with regards to lithium: ‘‘The U.S. is also unable to produce or process a number of other critical ma-terials, including lithium . . . For instance, the United States largely relies on dismantling retired warheads to recover lithium to sustain and produce deployable warheads. This may be inadequate to support the nuclear force replacement program and any supple-ments to it.’’ The committee therefore directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by November 1, 2018, on NNSA’s plans to meet near- and long-term requirements for tritium and lithium. Such briefing should include the require-ments, the options and plans to meet such requirements, costs as-sociated with these options and plans, and the status of any actions underway. Report on IW–1 and W78 replacement The committee notes that the recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) proposes ‘‘advancing the W78 warhead replacement one year to FY19 to support fielding on [the] Ground Based Strategic Deter-rent (GBSD) by 2030.’’ The NPR also discusses ‘‘exploring future ballistic missile warhead requirements based on the threats and vulnerabilities of potential adversaries, including the possibility of common reentry systems between the Air Force and Navy,’’ but does not directly mention the Interoperable Warhead-1 (IW–1) pro-gram. However, the fiscal year 2019 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration includes $53.0 million for the IW– 1 restart of the Phase 6.2 work (Feasibility Study & Design Op-tions) on this program. The budget request justification materials further say that the IW–1 program ‘‘will replace the W78 warhead by 2030 and support fielding of the U.S. Air Force GBSD missile system planned to replace the current Minuteman III ICBM force. Additionally, the program will investigate the feasibility of deploy-ing the replacement warhead’s nuclear explosive package in a US Navy flight body.’’ To clarify and better understand the direction of this program, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in coordination with the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later than January 15, 2019, on the status of the W78 replacement, also referenced as the IW–1 program. Specifically, the report should in-clude, since deferral of the program or due to the NPR, any changes in requirements, program plans and schedules, assump-tions, and options and designs being considered or that are pre-ferred. Secure transportation asset and Mobile Guardian Transporter The budget request includes $278.6 million for the National Nu-clear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Secure Transportation Asset. Run by the NNSA Office of Secure Transportation, this pro-gram provides for the safe and secure transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons components, and special nuclear materials. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

299 Within this amount, $51.8 million was requested to continue de-velopment of the Mobile Guardian Transporter (MGT) program, which is developing and procuring new highly-secure trailers to re-place existing Safeguards Transporter (SGT) trailers that are near-ing the end of their 20-year service life. The committee under-stands that several SGTs are beginning to show signs of significant rusting and structural degradation in key locations, that mitigation of this issue is not cost effective, and that at least one SGT has been removed from the fleet earlier than planned due to this prob-lem. The committee is concerned that this issue, or similar unexpected issues, if widespread, could undermine NNSA’s planned risk reduc-tion effort to keep a portion of the SGT fleet in operation beyond their 20-year service life while MGT is developed. Coupled with NNSA’s reduction in its planned fiscal year 2019 budget request for MGT, NNSA’s ability to meet surging transportation requirements in the 2020s could be at risk. The committee will oversee the SGT risk reduction effort, the MGT development and prototyping effort, and the Secure Transportation more broadly to track these impor-tant efforts. The committee recommends $278.6 million for the Secure Trans-portation Asset, the amount of the budget request. Streamlined and innovative approaches to non-nuclear construction projects Section 3111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) created the Infrastructure Mod-ernization Initiative (IMI) at the National Nuclear Security Admin-istration (NNSA) to accelerate and streamline efforts to reduce the large backlog of deferred maintenance and repair needs across the infrastructure of the nuclear security enterprise. As part of IMI, the Secretary of Energy is required to provide an enhanced and streamlined process to the Administrator for Nuclear Security to construct and demolish non-nuclear facilities that cost less than $100.0 million. The committee continues to endorse and encourage efforts of the Department of Energy (DOE) and NNSA to streamline approaches and processes related to constructing these types of facilities using commercial standards and best practices, as well as efforts to em-ploy innovative approaches. For example, new office buildings, light laboratories, fire stations, and emergency operations centers cur-rently being planned at sites across the nuclear enterprise may be constructed at less cost and more quickly if streamlined, commer-cially-based, or more innovative approaches are utilized. The committee believes continued focus and action is needed. Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Se-curity to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by January 15, 2019, on the actions taken by NNSA and DOE to implement the IMI, and in particular to carry out a streamlined process to con-struct or demolish non-nuclear facilities costing less than $100.0 million. Such briefing should include options for further stream-lining and accelerating associated processes (while retaining appli-cable safety standards), identification of any innovative approaches VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

300 or pilot programs to accelerate construction of such facilities, and such other matters as the Administrator determines appropriate. Weapons Activities and the Future Years Nuclear Security Program The budget request contained $11.02 billion for the Weapons Ac-tivities of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These programs support NNSA’s central mission of ensuring and sustaining the safety, security, reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile. In previous years, the committee has highlighted the comments of senior administration and military officials that have expressed concern that NNSA’s 5-year, Future Years Nuclear Security Pro-gram (FYNSP) budget profile was inadequate to meet NNSA’s pro-grammatic needs. The committee believes NNSA has taken note-worthy steps in this regard within its recent budget requests and the FYNSP submitted to Congress with the budget request for fis-cal year 2019. Recent increases have made significant strides to ad-dress the inadequacy in NNSA funding identified by the Secretary of Energy in a December 23, 2015, letter to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, which said NNSA’s 5-year, Future Years Nuclear Security Program budget profile, ‘‘does not reflect the funding that we estimate is necessary to meet [NNSA] requirements over the period . . . we estimate that an additional $5.2 billion over FY2018–2021 is needed to es-tablish a viable and sustainable program portfolio.’’ Elsewhere in this title, the committee discusses its recommenda-tions for increased funding and prioritization for several programs within Weapons Activities, including for infrastructure, defense nu-clear security, and inertial confinement fusion. The committee recommends $11.22 billion for Weapons Activi-ties, an increase of $198.0 million to the budget request. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Future nuclear proliferation challenges The committee continues to focus on the challenges associated with the detection, evaluation, and response to emerging nuclear threats, including emerging technologies that could lead to techno-logical surprise. Recent advancements in materials, manufacturing, computing, and cyber interconnectivity indicate that robust efforts are needed to identify and develop solutions to ensure the United States can continue to reliably detect, define, deter, delay, deny, and defeat these threats. The committee therefore directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in coordination with the directors of relevant national se-curity laboratories, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by November 15, 2018, on emerging nuclear proliferation threats and the state of our capabilities to address these threats. Such briefing should include options for novel solutions to meet these challenging threats, leverage on-going efforts within the national security lab-oratories, and include an estimate of the resources required to re-spond effectively and stay ahead of any emerging threats.

301 Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response program The budget request contained $319.2 million for the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Response program of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This program is respon-sible for countering nuclear threats, responding to nuclear inci-dents worldwide, and providing for the Department of Energy’s emergency management capability. The committee continues to highlight the importance and value of these programs that leverage the unique capabilities and knowl-edge at NNSA’s laboratories for national-level response efforts. Though a smaller and often-overlooked part of NNSA’s portfolio of responsibilities, the personnel within this program ensure the na-tion’s warfighters and first responders are able to detect, evaluate, and take decisive and technically informed action against all types of nuclear threats and incidents. The budget request includes $32.5 million to procure three fixed- wing Aerial Measuring System (AMS) aircraft in fiscal year 2019. These aircraft will replace antiquated and increasingly difficult to sustain aircraft, and provide NNSA enhanced capability to support national and international events involving radiological releases. Based on the completed analysis of alternatives for AMS, the com-mittee supports this recapitalization. The committee recommends $319.2 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Nuclear Counterterrorism and Incident Re-sponse program. Naval Reactors Naval Reactors program The budget request contained $1.79 billion for the Naval Reac-tors program. Naval Reactors is responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant technology de-sign and development, reactor plant operation and maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in nuclear-powered sub-marines and aircraft carriers that comprise over 45 percent of the Navy’s major combatants. The committee has long been supportive of the Naval Reactors program and believes it is an exceptional example of a nuclear-re-lated government program that is mission-driven, safety-focused, and well-managed. Due to this success, the committee will continue to have very high expectations for performance by Naval Reactors, particularly as it develops and delivers the life-of-ship reactor for the Columbia-class submarines. The committee is encouraged by the strong actions taken by Naval Reactors to address a manufac-turing problem with the prototype electric-drive motor for the Co-lumbia class but is mindful that there is no schedule margin re-maining for delivering this prototype, the reactor, and the Colum-bia itself. The committee notes that, as work on the Columbia-class Reactor System Development program ramps down over the 5-year Future Years Nuclear Security Program, Naval Reactors is plan-ning increases in its Naval Reactors Development funding. The committee expects Naval Reactors to more clearly justify these pro-posed increases within future budget requests. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

302 The budget request includes a significant, long-planned increase in funding for Naval Reactors to begin construction of the Spent Fuel Handling Recapitalization Project in Idaho and refueling of the S8G land-based prototype reactor in New York. The committee appreciates Naval Reactors’ transparency and adherence to its planned budget profile. The committee recommends $1.79 billion for the Naval Reactors program, the amount of the budget request. Federal Salaries and Expenses Management and operating contracts for national security labora-tories The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Admin-istration (NNSA) continues to implement its plans to compete its large management and operating (M&O) contracts for running the laboratories and plants of the nuclear security enterprise. The com-mittee has long conducted oversight of these plans to ensure the costs and benefits of the M&O contract competitions and overall contracting strategy are appropriately weighed. Last year, the com-mittee included section 3138 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91) to continue this over-sight and require an independent organization to review NNSA’s contracting strategy. Among other matters, this review is required to assess the current for-profit contracting model for NNSA’s nu-clear security laboratories. The committee is aware that the State of New Mexico recently considered legislation that would require NNSA and its M&O lab-oratory contractors to continue paying certain State taxes as a for- profit entity, even if the M&O contract is awarded to a non-profit entity. The committee cautions that such an approach may be counterproductive and inappropriately interfere with the Federal Government’s ability to manage its national security laboratories to provide maximum value and benefit to national security and U.S. taxpayers. The committee understands the important role that these laboratories play in their local communities and States, and highlights other means, such as payments in lieu of taxes, that the Federal Government may leverage to support such local commu-nities. Security clearance investigations for the nuclear security enterprise The committee notes that, while the Office of Personnel Manage-ment (OPM) has undertaken significant steps to improve the secu-rity clearance investigation process, the backlog of security clear-ance investigations continues to prevent the Federal Government, including the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) nuclear security enterprise, from hiring qualified personnel in a timely manner. This problem is particularly acute for NNSA as ele-ments of the nuclear security enterprise continue to execute robust hiring plans to support the increased workload associated with the nation’s nuclear modernization program. In a recent report on the state of the nuclear weapons stockpile, the director of one of na-tional security laboratories highlighted this challenge, saying that for his laboratory, ‘‘1,011 staff were hired in 2016, and about 1,000 new hires are expected by the end of 2017. This hiring rate is ex-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

303 pected to continue . . . However, technical mentoring, particularly by experienced senior staff who are on the verge of retiring, is vir-tually impossible if newly hired staff are unable to obtain a secu-rity clearance in a timely manner.’’ The director further noted that 1,300 DOE ‘‘Q’’ clearances were awaiting approval. The committee understands the complexity of this issue and con-tinues to seek solutions that enable a robust background review but also timely completion. To enhance its oversight, the committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by December 1, 2018, on efforts to streamline and improve the security clearance investigation and adjudication process for the nuclear security enterprise. Such brief-ing should include actions taken by NNSA and OPM, any planned actions, options for future action, and any recommendations of the Administrator regarding statutory changes or other Congressional action. ENVIRONMENTAL ANDOTHERDEFENSEACTIVITIESOverview The budget request for fiscal year 2019 contained $6.51 billion for environmental and other defense activities. The committee rec-ommends $6.56 billion, an increase of $50.0 million to the budget request. Defense Environmental Cleanup Briefings on vapor events at Hanford Site The committee is concerned about the continuing reports of toxic vapors emanating from nuclear waste tanks at the Hanford Site being inhaled by workers. Over the past several years, many work-ers have reported suspicious odors and subsequent health effects. The committee notes that additional protective measures and guid-ance have been implemented at the site, but that reported events continue. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environ-mental Management, to provide semiannual briefings to the Com-mittee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, starting on August 31, 2018, and continuing during fiscal year 2019, on waste tank vapor incidents at the Hanford Site. Such briefings should include details on recent vapor inhalation events, any tech-nical data regarding the vapors, any health problems caused by the vapors, mitigation measures in place to protect workers from the vapors, engineered or administrative controls being considered to prevent such events, and any other information the Secretary de-termines to be relevant. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00333 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

304 LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—NATIONALSECURITYPROGRAMS ANDAUTHORIZATIONSSection 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration This section would authorize appropriations for the National Nu-clear Security Administration for fiscal year 2019, including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and Federal Salaries and Expenses, at the levels specified in the funding table in division D of this Act. This section would also authorize several new plant projects for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Section 3102—Defense Environmental Cleanup This section would authorize appropriations for defense environ-mental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2019 at the levels specified in the funding table in division D of this Act. Section 3103—Other Defense Activities This section would authorize appropriations for Other Defense Activities for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2019 at the levels specified in the funding table in division D of this Act. Section 3104—Nuclear Energy This section would authorize appropriations for certain nuclear energy programs for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2019 at the levels specified in the funding table in division D of this Act. SUBTITLEB—PROGRAMAUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, ANDLIMITATIONSSection 3111—Security Clearance for Dual Nationals Employed by National Nuclear Security Agency This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to apply ad-ditional security reviews to dual citizens seeking positions that re-quire access to highly classified information. The committee expects that any additional security reviews will not further exacerbate background investigation backlogs. Section 3112—Department of Energy Counterintelligence Polygraph Program This section would amend section 4504b of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C 2654b) by authorizing the Secretary of En-ergy to add dual citizens to the Department of Energy counterintel-ligence polygraph program, for the purposes of assessing risk. Section 3113—Extension of Enhanced Procurement Authority To Manage Supply Chain Risk This section would extend the authority provided by section 2786 of title 50, U.S. Code, for an additional 5 years, to June 30, 2023. This authority enables the Secretary of Energy to take certain pro-curement actions to help protect the supply chain for certain crit-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

305 ical national security technologies. This section would also make a technical correction to section 2786 of title 50, U.S. Code. Section 3114—Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons This section would repeal section 3116 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) re-lated to low-yield nuclear weapons. This section would also author-ize the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to carry out the engineering development phase, and any subsequent phase, to modify or develop a low-yield nuclear warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Section 3115—Use of Funds for Construction and Project Support Activities Relating to MOX Facility This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry out construction and project support activities relating to the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility with any funds authorized to be ap-propriated by this Act or otherwise made available for such pur-poses for fiscal year 2019. The Secretary would be allowed to waive this requirement if the Secretary submits to the congressional de-fense committees the matters described under section 3121(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub-lic Law 115–91). Section 3116—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Programs in Russian Federation This section would provide that none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2019 for atomic energy defense activities may be obligated or expended to enter into a contract with, or otherwise provide assist-ance to, the Russian Federation. The Secretary of Energy, without delegation, would be provided the authority to waive this prohibi-tion if the Secretary determines, in writing, that a nuclear-related threat in Russia must be addressed urgently and that it is nec-essary to waive the prohibition to address that threat. The waiver could only be used if the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense concur in that determination, and the Secretary of Energy submits a report to the appropriate congressional committees con-taining notification that such waiver is in the national security in-terest of the United States, a justification for such waiver, a de-scription of the activities to be carried out pursuant to the waiver, and a period of 7 days elapses. The prohibition and waiver con-tained in this section would not apply to up to $3.0 million that the Secretary of Energy may make available for the Department of En-ergy’s Russian Health Studies Program. Section 3117—Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Research and Development of Advanced Naval Nuclear Fuel System Based on Low-Enriched Uranium This section would prohibit any funds authorized to be appro-priated by this Act for fiscal year 2019 or otherwise made available to the Department of Energy or the Department of Defense from being obligated or expended to plan or carry out research and de-

306 velopment of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low- enriched uranium. The section would provide an exception to this prohibition and require that, in accordance with section 7319 of title 10, United States Code, that $10.0 million of the funds author-ized for defense nuclear nonproliferation within the National Nu-clear Security Administration’s atomic energy defense activities shall be made available to the Deputy Administrator for Naval Re-actors for low-enriched uranium activities. Section 3118—Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating to Submission of Annual Reports on Unfunded Priorities This section would amend section 4716 of the Atomic Energy De-fense Act (50 U.S.C. 2756) to provide that, for any of fiscal years 2020 through 2024 in which the Administrator fails to submit a re-port pursuant to such section 4716 that contains at least one un-funded priority of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Administrator for Nuclear Security would be prohib-ited from obligating or expending funds for travel and transpor-tation of persons under the NNSA’s Federal Salaries and Expenses account until the date on which such a report is submitted. SUBTITLEC—REPORTSSection 3121—Notification Regarding Release of Contamination at Hanford Site This section would require the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management to promptly notify and provide a brief-ing to the congressional defense committees after any improper re-lease of contamination resulting from defense waste at the Hanford Site. SUBTITLED—OTHERMATTERSSection 3131—Inclusion of Capital Assets Acquisition Projects in Activities by Director for Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation This section would amend section 3221 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2411) to include capital as-sets in the definition of major atomic energy defense acquisition programs regarding the authorities of the Director for Cost Esti-mating and Program Evaluation. The committee clarifies that this section does not affect the role of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Project Management in overseeing implementation of DOE Order 413.3B. Section 3132—Whistleblower Protections This section would make a series of findings and express the sense of Congress regarding nuclear safety and whistleblowers. This section would also require the Secretary of Energy, including by acting through the Administrator for Nuclear Security as appro-priate, to impose civil penalties, as the Secretary or the Adminis-trator determine appropriate, on contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers for violations of Department of Energy rules, regulations, and orders relating to nuclear safety and radiation protection. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

307 This section would also require the Secretary to define, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, what constitutes evidence of a chilled work environment with respect to employees and contrac-tors making a whistleblower complaint and would require an an-nual congressional notification on the imposition of any penalties related to violations of rules, regulations, and orders by contrac-tors, subcontractors, and suppliers. TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 3201—Authorization The budget request contained $31.2 million for the Defense Nu-clear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2019. The committee recommends $31.2 million, the amount of the budget request. TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations This section would authorize $10.0 million for fiscal year 2019 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum Reserves. TITLE XXXV—MARITIME MATTERS ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST Maritime Security Program The committee remains deeply concerned by the decrease in our merchant mariner fleet. The committee notes that the U.S. com-mercial presence in the international maritime domain has been on a steady decline since its peak in World War II and is currently at the lowest level in American history. Of some 40,000 large, oceangoing commercial vessels in the world today, just 181 sail under the U.S. flag, including 81 vessels operating exclusively in international trade. A robust commercial shipping industry is vital to the U.S. military’s ability to project power around the world. The Maritime Security Program (MSP) is critical to U.S. sustainment capability and supporting the pool of highly trained Mariners nec-essary to support our government owned Ready Reserve Force fleet when activated. Created in 1996, the program helps maintain an active, privately-owned, U.S.-flag and U.S.-crewed fleet of 60 mili-tarily useful commercial ships operating in international trade. MSP participants receive an annual stipend and their ships are available ‘‘on-call’’ to support DOD’s global transportation needs. The MSP supports employment for 2,400 U.S. merchant mariners, and provides DOD with assured access to the critical multibillion- dollar global network of intermodal facilities and transport systems maintained by MSP participants. Recent agreements such as the 2016 US–Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the de-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

308 cision to end foreign military financing (FMF) funding for jet fuel purchases may affect the ability to project forces in times of future contingencies because of the potential diminution of government- impelled cargo. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by September 1, 2018 as to the MSP impact, if any, of the 2016 U.S.-Israel (MOU). Such a briefing shall specifically include an assessment of the loss of merchant mariners and the national security impact associated with the long-term sustainment of the Ready Reserve Force in times of conflict. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS SUBTITLEA—MARITIMEADMINISTRATIONSection 3501—Authorization of the Maritime Administration This section would authorize appropriations for the national se-curity aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal year 2019. Section 3502—Compliance by Ready Reserve Fleet Vessels With SOLAS Lifeboats and Fire Suppression Requirements This section would require the Secretary of Defense to incor-porate lifeboat and fire suppression standards associated with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea for Ready Reserve Fleet vessels that are planned to be retained by the Sec-retary beyond October 1, 2026. Section 3503—Maritime Administration National Security Multi- Mission Vessel Program This section would limit the Maritime Administration from pro-curing used training vessels for the National Security Multi-Mis-sion Vessel Program. The committee notes that the Maritime Administration requested authority to procure two used vessels and is concerned that such a short-term strategy would not support the long-term maritime academies’ interests. The committee continues to support the new construction of these training vessels in the United States. Section 3504—Permanent Authority of Secretary of Transportation To Issue Vessel War Risk Insurance This section would amend chapter 539 of title 46, United States Code, to make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Trans-portation to provide vessel war risk insurance. Section 3505—Use of State Maritime Academy Training Vessels This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to im-plement a program to share maritime academy training vessels with the State maritime academies. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

309 SUBTITLEB—COASTGUARDSection 3521—Alignment with Department of Defense and Sea Services Authorities This section would require the Coast Guard to notify the Com-mittee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep-resentatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-portation of the Senate on August 26, 2018, if there is not in effect any general order or regulation prohibiting sexual harassment by members of the Coast Guard and that the violation of such order or regulation is punishable in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The notification is required to include the sta-tus of the drafting of such a regulation, the projected implementa-tion timeline, and an explanation of any barriers to implementa-tion. The subsection also amends section 217 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–281) to include sexual harassment in the annual report on sexual assaults reported to the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. This section would amend chapter 29 of title 14 by adding a new section, Annual Performance Report, to require the Coast Guard to submit to the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate an update on Coast Guard mission performance during the previous fiscal year, and make it available on a public website. Section 3522—Preliminary Development and Demonstration This section would amend section 573 of title 14, United States Code, to clarify the process to report safety concerns found either by an independent third party or a Government employee for ac-quisition programs or projects or a capability or asset or any sub-system of a capability or asset not previously identified during operational test and evaluation of a capability or asset already in low, initial or full-rate production. Section 3523—Contract Termination This section would amend chapter 17 of title 14, United States Code, by inserting a new section 657 to establish a process for con-tract cancellation, including requiring the Coast Guard to notify each vendor when it terminates a procurement or acquisition con-tact with a total value of more than $1.0 million and that such ven-dors are required to maintain all work product related to the con-tract for at least 1 year. Additionally, the Coast Guard shall pro-vide an annual report to the Committee of Transportation and In-frastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on termi-nated contracts. Section 3524—Reimbursement for Travel Expenses This section would amend section 518 of title 14, United States Code, to state that a covered beneficiary and their dependents re-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

310 siding on an island located in the 48 contiguous States and the Dis-trict of Columbia that lacks public access roads to the mainland, shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses for medical services when referred by a primary care physician to a physician on the mainland or the Coast Guard medical regional manager for the area determines medical services cannot be provided on the is-land. Section 3525—Capital Investment Plan This section would amend section 2902(a) of title 14, United States Code, to change the date when the Capital Investment shall be reported to the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate to require reporting on projected commissioning and decommissioning dates for each asset. Section 3526—Major Acquisition Program Risk Assessment This section would amend chapter 29 of title 14, United States Code, to add a section on major acquisition program risk assess-ment stating that twice a year the Coast Guard shall provide to the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a briefing regarding a current assess-ment of risks associated with all current major acquisition pro-grams, including breach of program schedule or costs. Section 3527—Marine Safety Implementation Status This section would state that the Coast Guard shall submit a re-port on the date on which the President submits to Congress a budget for fiscal year 2020 and for the following two years to the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the implementation of each action outlined in the Commandant’s final action memo from December 19, 2017. Section 3528—Retirement of Vice Commandant This section would amend section 46 of title 14, United States Code, to state that a Vice Commandant who is not reappointed or appointed Commandant shall retire with the grade of admiral. Section 3529—Large Commercial Yacht Code This section would require the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating through the Commandant of the Coast Guard to establish a code for certification of certain large commercial yachts.

311 SUBTITLEC—COASTGUARD ANDSHIPPINGTECHNICALCORRECTIONSCHAPTER1—COASTGUARDSection 3531—Commandant Defined This section amends chapter 1 of title 14, U.S. Code, to add a section with the definition of the Commandant as the ‘‘Com-mandant of the Coast Guard’’. Throughout title 14, ‘‘Commandant of the Coast Guard’’ is replaced with ‘‘Commandant’’. Section 3532—Training Course on Workings of Congress This section would amend section 60(d) of title 14, U.S. Code, by striking an outdated training requirement and stating that a Coast Guard flag officer or Coast Guard Senior Executive Service em-ployee working in the National Capital Region shall complete a training course on the workings of Congress not later than 60 days after reporting for duty. Section 3533—Miscellaneous This section would amend multiple sections of title 14, U.S. Codes with various technical changes. Section 3534—Department of Defense Consultation This section would amend section 566 of title 14, U.S. Code, to change ‘‘enter into’’ to ‘‘maintain’’ the memorandum of under-standing with the Navy for technical assistance. This section would also amend section 566 of title 14, U.S. Code, to remove language for an already delivered one-time report on Coast Guard acquisi-tions. Section 3535—Repeal This section would strike section 568 of title 14, U.S. Code, to re-move guidance on excessive pass-through charges related to the long-defunct Deepwater acquisition program. Section 3536—Mission Need Statement This section would amend section 569 of title 14, U.S. Code, to appear after section 2904 and renumber this section. This section would also amend subsection (a) in section 2904 of title 14, U.S. Code, as so redesignated, to strike ‘‘, on the date on which the President submits to Congress a budget for fiscal year 2019 under such section,’’ and replaces ‘‘for fiscal year 2016’’ with ‘‘for fiscal year 2019’’. Section 3537—Continuation on Active Duty This section would amend section 290(a) of title 14, U.S. Code, to change ‘‘Officers, other than the Commandant, serving’’ to ‘‘Offi-cers serving’’ in or above the grade of vice admiral are not subject to consideration for continuation under this subsection. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

312 Section 3538—System Acquisition Authorization This section would amend section 2701(2) of title 14, U.S. Code, to change ‘‘and aircraft’’ to ‘‘aircraft, and systems’’ for the require-ment for prior authorization of appropriations. This section would also amend section 2702(2) of title 14, U.S. Code, to change ‘‘and aircraft’’ to ‘‘aircraft, and systems’’ for the appropriations. Section 3539—Inventory of Real Property This section would amend section 679(a) of title 14, U.S. Code, to change ‘‘not later than September 30, 2015, the Commandant shall establish’’ to ‘‘The Commandant shall maintain’’ the inventory of real property. This section would also amend section 679(b) of title 14, U.S. Code, to state that the Commandant shall update in-ventory of real property not later than 30 days after any change to control of such property. CHAPTER2—MARITIMETRANSPORTATIONSection 3541—Definitions This section would amend section 2101 of title 46, U.S. Code, to add the definition of the Commandant as the ‘‘Commandant of the Coast Guard’’, re-designate existing definitions, and update all cross-references to the definitions in 46 U.S.C. 2101 throughout the code. Section 3542—Authority to Exempt Vessels This section would amend section 2113 of title 46, U.S. Code, to strike subsections (4) and (5) and replace with a new subsection (4) to state that the Secretary may maintain different structural fire protection, manning, operating, and equipment requirements for vessels. Section 3543—Passenger Vessels This section would amend section 3507 of title 46, U.S. Code, to strike subsection (a)(3) pertaining to an expired effective date, clar-ify subsection (e)(2) by changing ‘‘services confidential’’ to ‘‘services as confidential’’, and, in subsection (i), replace ‘‘Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safe-ty Act of 2010, the Secretary shall issue’’ with ‘‘The Secretary shall maintain’’ for procedures related to passenger vessel security and safety requirements. This section would also amend section 3508 of title 46, U.S. Code, to strike subsection (d) and removes outdated requirements in sub-sections (a), (c), and (e), as redesignated by the section. Section 3544—Tank Vessels This section would amend section 3703a, 3705 and 3706 of title 46, U.S. Code, to remove outdated requirements. Amends section 1001(32)(A) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701(32)(a)) to remove an outdated cross-reference. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

313 Section 3545—Grounds for Denial or Revocation This section would amend section 7503a and 7704 of title 46, U.S. Code, to renumber the subsections after striking previously re-pealed subsection (a) in each section. Section 3546—Miscellaneous Corrections to Title 46, U.S.C. This section would amend miscellaneous sections of title 46, U.S. Code, to remove outdated requirements, re-designate subsections, and update cross-references. Section 3547—Miscellaneous Corrections to Oil Pollution Act of 1990 This section would amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701) to remove outdated requirements, re-designate sub-sections, and update cross-references. Section 3548—Miscellaneous Corrections This section would amend: section 1 of the Act of June 15, 1917 (chapter 30; 50 U.S.C. 191) to replace the ‘‘Secretary of Transpor-tation’’ with the ‘‘Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.’’; section 5(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to reg-ulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters’’, approved March 23, 1906 (chapter 1130; 33 U.S.C. 495(b)) to remove out-dated requirements; and section 5(f) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1904(f)) to remove outdated cross-references. DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES Section 4001—Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables This section would provide for the allocation of funds among pro-grams, projects, and activities in accordance with the tables in divi-sion D of this Act, subject to reprogramming guidance in accord-ance with established procedures. Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, this section would also require that a decision by an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on merit-based selection pro-cedures in accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

314 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request Function 051, Department of Defense-Military Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations Title I—Procurement Aircraft Procurement, Army …………………………………….3,782,558 223,270 4,005,828 Missile Procurement, Army ……………………………………..3,355,777 494,338 3,850,115 Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army …………….4,489,118 1,368,521 5,857,639 Procurement of Ammunition, Army ………………………….2,234,761 249,661 2,484,422 Other Procurement, Army ……………………………………….7,999,529 410,925 8,410,454 Aircraft Procurement, Navy …………………………………….19,041,799 –327,950 18,713,849 Weapons Procurement, Navy …………………………………..3,702,393 175,200 3,877,593 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps …..1,006,209 1,006,209 Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy …………………………….21,871,437 1,852,100 23,723,537 Other Procurement, Navy ………………………………………..9,414,355 –377,325 9,037,030 Procurement, Marine Corps …………………………………….2,860,410 19,900 2,880,310 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ……………………………….16,206,937 –673,516 15,533,421 Missile Procurement, Air Force ………………………………..2,669,454 2,669,454 Space Procurement, Air Force …………………………………2,527,542 5,000 2,532,542 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force …………………….1,587,304 –5,000 1,582,304 Other Procurement, Air Force ………………………………….20,890,164 –235,250 20,654,914 Procurement, Defense-Wide …………………………………….6,786,271 –18,000 6,768,271 Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund ………………………100,025 –100,025 0 Subtotal, Title I—Procurement……………………………..130,526,043 3,061,849 133,587,892 Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army …….10,159,379 162,200 10,321,579 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy ……..18,481,666 –94,550 18,387,116 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force40,178,343 694,100 40,872,443 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense- Wide ………………………………………………………………..22,016,553 97,950 22,114,503 Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense …………………..221,009 221,009 Subtotal, Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation………………………………………………………..91,056,950 859,700 91,916,650 Title III—Operation and Maintenance Operation & Maintenance, Army ……………………………..42,009,317 –2,775,388 39,233,929 Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve …………………2,916,909 30,000 2,946,909 Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ………7,399,295 70,000 7,469,295 Operation & Maintenance, Navy ……………………………..49,003,633 –673,430 48,330,203 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ………………….6,832,510 78,100 6,910,610 Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ………………….1,027,006 10,000 1,037,006 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ……..271,570 16,700 288,270 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ………………………..42,060,568 –78,900 41,981,668 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ……………3,260,234 50,600 3,310,834 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

315 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ………….6,427,622 23,900 6,451,522 Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide …………………36,352,625 –745,825 35,606,800 US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense …14,662 14,662 DoD Acquisition Workforce Development Fund ………….400,000 400,000 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid ……….107,663 107,663 Cooperative Threat Reduction …………………………………335,240 335,240 Environmental Restoration, Army …………………………….203,449 10,000 213,449 Environmental Restoration, Navy …………………………….329,253 10,000 339,253 Environmental Restoration, Air Force ……………………….296,808 50,000 346,808 Environmental Restoration, Defense ………………………..8,926 8,926 Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites ……….212,346 212,346 Subtotal, Title III—Operation and Maintenance……..199,469,636 –3,924,243 195,545,393 Title IV—Military Personnel Military Personnel Appropriations ……………………………140,689,301 –700,500 139,988,801 Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions …7,533,090 7,533,090 Subtotal, Title IV—Military Personnel……………………148,222,391 –700,500 147,521,891 Title XIV—Other Authorizations Working Capital Fund, Army …………………………………..158,765 158,765 Working Capital Fund, Air Force ……………………………..69,054 69,054 Working Capital Fund, DECA …………………………………..48,096 48,096 Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide ……………………….1,266,200 1,266,200 National Defense Sealift Fund ………………………………..0 816,752 816,752 Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction ……………….993,816 993,816 Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities ………….787,525 20,000 807,525 Office of the Inspector General ……………………………….329,273 5,000 334,273 Defense Health Program ………………………………………..33,729,192 –452,500 33,276,692 Subtotal, Title XIV—Other Authorizations………………37,381,921 389,252 37,771,173 Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authoriza-tions………………………………………………………………..606,656,941 –313,942 606,342,999 Division B: Military Construction Authorizations Military Construction Army …………………………………………………………………….1,011,768 84,100 1,095,868 Navy …………………………………………………………………….2,543,189 –4,291 2,538,898 Air Force ………………………………………………………………1,725,707 –154,934 1,570,773 Defense-Wide ………………………………………………………..2,693,324 –219,986 2,473,338 NATO Security Investment Program …………………………171,064 171,064 Army National Guard ……………………………………………..180,122 11,000 191,122 Army Reserve ………………………………………………………..64,919 23,000 87,919 Navy and Marine Corps Reserve ……………………………..43,065 43,065 Air National Guard ………………………………………………..129,126 62,000 191,126 Air Force Reserve …………………………………………………..50,163 84,800 134,963 Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund …………….600 600 Subtotal, Military Construction………………………………8,613,047 –114,311

316 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Family Housing Construction, Army ………………………………………………..330,660 330,660 Operation & Maintenance, Army ……………………………..376,509 376,509 Construction, Navy and Marine Corps ……………………..104,581 104,581 Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps …..314,536 314,536 Construction, Air Force …………………………………………..78,446 78,446 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ………………………..317,274 317,274 Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide …………………58,373 58,373 Improvement Fund …………………………………………………1,653 1,653 Subtotal, Family Housing………………………………………1,582,032 0 1,582,032 Base Realignment and Closure Base Realignment and Closure—Army ……………………62,796 18,110 80,906 Base Realignment and Closure—Navy ……………………151,839 19,110 170,949 Base Realignment and Closure—Air Force ………………52,903 18,110 71,013 Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure……………….267,538 55,330 322,868 Prior Year Savings …………………………………………………0 –71,158 –71,158 Total, Division B: Military Construction Authoriza-tions………………………………………………………………..10,462,617 –130,139 10,332,478 Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military……………617,119,558 –444,081 616,675,477 Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities Environmental and Other Defense Activities Nuclear Energy ……………………………………………………..136,090 136,090 Weapons Activities ………………………………………………..11,017,078 198,000 11,215,078 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation …………………………….1,862,825 127,000 1,989,825 Naval Reactors ……………………………………………………..1,788,618 1,788,618 Federal Salaries and Expenses ……………………………….422,529 –18,000 404,529 Defense Environmental Cleanup ……………………………..5,630,217 50,000 5,680,217 Other Defense Activities …………………………………………853,300 853,300 Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal …………………………….30,000 30,000 Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activi-ties………………………………………………………………….21,740,657 357,000 22,097,657 Independent Federal Agency Authorization Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board …………………..31,243 31,243 Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization 31,243 0 31,243 Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities…….21,771,900 357,000 22,128,900 Function 054, Defense-Related Activities Other Agency Authorizations VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

317 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Maritime Security Program ……………………………………..214,000 86,000 300,000 Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization 214,000 86,000 300,000 Subtotal, 054, Defense-Related Activities………………214,000 86,000 300,000 Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations..21,985,900 443,000 22,428,900 Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Re-quest……………………………………………………………….639,105,458 –1,081 639,104,377 National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations Function 051, Department of Defense-Military Procurement Aircraft Procurement, Army …………………………………….363,363 –54,270 309,093 Missile Procurement, Army ……………………………………..1,802,351 –646,938 1,155,413 Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army …………….1,107,183 –1,095,521 11,662 Procurement of Ammunition, Army ………………………….309,525 –211,661 97,864 Other Procurement, Army ……………………………………….1,382,047 –273,125 1,108,922 Aircraft Procurement, Navy …………………………………….80,119 80,119 Weapons Procurement, Navy …………………………………..14,134 14,134 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps …..246,541 246,541 Other Procurement, Navy ………………………………………..187,173 187,173 Procurement, Marine Corps …………………………………….58,023 58,023 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ……………………………….1,018,888 –192,700 826,188 Missile Procurement, Air Force ………………………………..493,526 493,526 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 National Guard & Reserve Equipment ……………………..0 150,000 150,000 Subtotal, Procurement………………………………………….12,782,468 –2,324,215 10,458,253 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army …….325,104 –40,000 285,104 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy ……..167,812 167,812 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force314,271 314,271 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense- Wide ………………………………………………………………..500,544 500,544 Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evalua-tion………………………………………………………………….1,307,731 –40,000 1,267,731 Operation and Maintenance Operation & Maintenance, Army ……………………………..18,210,500 2,314,057 20,524,557 Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve …………………41,887 41,887 Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard ………110,729 110,729 Afghanistan Security Forces Fund …………………………..5,199,450 5,199,450 Counter-ISIS Train & Equip Fund ……………………………1,400,000 1,400,000 VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

318 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Operation & Maintenance, Navy ……………………………..4,757,155 4,757,155 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps ………………….1,121,900 1,121,900 Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve ………………….25,637 25,637 Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ……..3,345 3,345 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force ………………………..9,285,789 9,285,789 Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ……………60,500 60,500 Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard ………….15,870 15,870 Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide …………………8,549,908 –200,000 8,349,908 Ukraine Security Assistance ……………………………………0 250,000 250,000 Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance……………………48,782,670 2,364,057 51,146,727 Military Personnel Military Personnel Appropriations ……………………………4,660,661 4,660,661 Subtotal, Military Personnel………………………………….4,660,661 0 4,660,661 Other Authorizations Working Capital Fund, Army …………………………………..6,600 6,600 Working Capital Fund, Air Force ……………………………..8,590 8,590 Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities ………….153,100 153,100 Office of the Inspector General ……………………………….24,692 24,692 Defense Health Program ………………………………………..352,068 352,068 Subtotal, Other Authorizations………………………………545,050 0 545,050 Military Construction Army …………………………………………………………………….261,250 –69,000 192,250 Navy …………………………………………………………………….227,320 227,320 Air Force ………………………………………………………………345,800 69,000 414,800 Defense-Wide ………………………………………………………..87,050 87,050 Subtotal, Military Construction………………………………921,420 0 921,420 Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contin-gency Operations……………………………………………..69,000,000 –158 68,999,842 Total, National Defense…………………………………………708,105,458 –1,239 708,104,219 MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS Title XIV—Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600) …………………………………………………………………64,300 64,300 Title XXXIV—Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function 270) ………………………………………………….10,000 10,000 MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD) Title X—General Transfer Authority …………………………[5,000,000 ] [5,000,000 ] Title XV—Special Transfer Authority ……………………….[4,500,000 ] [4,500,000 ] MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COM-MITTEE (NON-ADD) VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

319 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019—Continued (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Defense Production Act ………………………………………….[38,578 ] [38,578

320 NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051)…………………….617,119,558 –444,081 616,675,477 SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053)……21,771,900 357,000 22,128,900 SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)……………….214,000 86,000 300,000 TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)—BASE BILL………………….639,105,458 –1,081 639,104,377 TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS………………….69,000,000 –158 68,999,842 GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE………………………………….708,105,458 –1,239 708,104,219 Scoring adjustments to account for transfers out already credited to 050 by OMB Transfers to non-Defense budget functions ………………………–128,000 –128,000 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051………………………………..–128,000 –128,000 Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or Do Not Require Additional Authorization (CBO Estimates) 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, Budget Sub-Function 051………………………………..83,000 83,000 Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program ………………120,000 120,000 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053………………………………..120,000 120,000 Other Discretionary Programs ………………………………………….7,819,542 7,819,542 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054………………………………..7,819,542 7,819,542 Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050)……………….8,022,542 8,022,542 Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary Department of Defense–Military (051) ……………………………..686,074,558 –444,239 685,630,319 Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) …………………………….21,891,900 357,000 22,248,900 Defense-Related Activities (054) ……………………………………..8,033,542 86,000 8,119,542 Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary……..716,000,000 –1,239 715,998,761 National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Baseline) Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retire-ment 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, Budget Sub-Function 051………………………………..7,659,000 7,659,000 Energy employees occupational illness compensation pro-grams and other ………………………………………………………..1,277,000 1,277,000 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053………………………………..1,277,000 1,277,000 Radiation exposure compensation trust fund ……………………50,000 50,000 Payment to CIA retirement fund and other ……………………….514,000 514,000 Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054………………………………..564,000 564,000 Total National Defense Mandatory (050)…………………………9,500,000 9,500,000 Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory Department of Defense–Military (051) ……………………………..693,733,558 –444,239 693,289,319

321 NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued (In Thousands of Dollars) FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053) …………………………….23,168,900 357,000 23,525,900 Defense-Related Activities (054) ……………………………………..8,597,542 86,000 8,683,542 Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory…………………………………………………………………725,500,000 –1,239 725,498,761

322 TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 002 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT …………………………………………………………………………….744 744 003 MQ–1 UAV ……………………………………………………………………………………………..43,326 60,000 103,326 MQ–1 Gray Eagle Service Life Extension Program ……………………………..[60,000 ] 004 RQ–11 (RAVEN) ………………………………………………………………………………………46,416 46,416 ROTARY 007 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN …………………………………………………………..48 753,248 48 753,248 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..174,550 174,550 009 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD …………………………………………………….12 284,687 12 284,687 Additional AH–64Es to address ARNG shortfalls ………………………………..[6 ] [192,000 ] Realignment to cover ARNG shortfalls ………………………………………………[–6 ] [–192,000 ] 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..58,600 58,600 011 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ………………………………………………………..49 988,810 5 85,000 54 1,073,810 Additional UH–60Ms for ARNG …………………………………………………………[5 ] [85,000 ] 012 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..106,150 106,150 013 UH–60 BLACK HAWK A AND L MODELS ……………………………………………………..18 146,138 18 146,138 014 CH–47 HELICOPTER ………………………………………………………………………………..6 99,278 6 99,278 015 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..24,235 24,235

323 018 UNIVERSAL GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (UAS) ………………………………………27,114 27,114 019 GRAY EAGLE MODS2 ……………………………………………………………………………….97,781 97,781 020 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) …………………………………………………………….52,274 14,000 66,274 Army UFR: program increase ……………………………………………………………[14,000 ] 021 AH–64 MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………….104,996 104,996 022 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ………………………………………………….7,807 7,807 023 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) …………………………………………………………………………5,573 5,573 024 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ……………………………………………………………………………7,522 7,522 025 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ……………………………………………………………………..20,448 20,448 026 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ……………………………………………………………….17,719 17,719 027 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ………………………………………………………………………6,443 10,000 16,443UH–72A Life-Cycle Sustainability ……………………………………………………..[10,000 ] 028 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN ………………………………………………………………….123,614 123,614 029 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE ……………………………………………………………………161,969 161,969 030 DEGRADED VISUAL ENVIRONMENT …………………………………………………………….30,000 30,000 031 GATM ROLLUP ………………………………………………………………………………………..26,848 26,848 032 RQ–7 UAV MODS …………………………………………………………………………………….103,246 50,868 154,114 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[50,868 ] 033 UAS MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………..17,644 3,402 21,046 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[3,402 ] GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 034 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………….57,170 57,170 035 SURVIVABILITY CM ………………………………………………………………………………….5,853 5,853 036 CMWS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………13,496 13,496 037 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ……………………………………..36,839 36,839 OTHER SUPPORT 038 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….1,778 1,778 039 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………34,818 34,818 040 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………27,243 27,243 041 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL …………………………………………………………………………….63,872 63,872 042 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ……………………………………………………………………………1,417 1,417 043 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ………………………………………………………………………..1,901 1,901

324 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 044 LAUNCHER GUIDED MISSILE: LONGBOW HELLFIRE XM2 ………………………………991 991 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY……………………………………….133 3,782,558 5 223,270 138 4,005,828 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 001 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ………………………………………….111,395 111,395 002 MSE MISSILE ………………………………………………………………………………………….179 871,276 260,000 179 1,131,276 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[260,000 ] 003 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I ……………………………………….145,636 145,636 004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..31,286 31,286 AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 006 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) …………………………………………………………1,046 276,462 –27,600 1,046 248,862 Unit cost and engineering services cost growth ………………………………..[–27,600 ] ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 008 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ………………………………………………………709 303,665 –36,200 709 267,465 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus for command launch units …….[–50,000 ] Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[13,800 ] 009 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………….1,472 105,014 1,472 105,014 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..19,949 19,949 011 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ……………………………………………………………….3,267 359,613 –30,000 3,267 329,613 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–30,000 ] 012 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) ………………………………….2,214 20,964 2,214 20,964 013 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM (HIMARS ………………………………..171,138 171,138 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[171,138 ] MODIFICATIONS 015 PATRIOT MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………….313,228 20,000 333,228

325 Increase PATRIOT Mod efforts ………………………………………………………….[20,000 ] 016 ATACMS MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………….221,656 15,000 236,656 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–65,000 ] Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[80,000 ] 017 GMLRS MOD …………………………………………………………………………………………..266 266 018 STINGER MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………….94,756 94,756 019 AVENGER MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………..48,670 48,670020 ITAS/TOW MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………..3,173 3,173 021 MLRS MODS …………………………………………………………………………………………..383,216 122,000 505,216 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[122,000 ] 022 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS …………………………………………………………………………..10,196 10,196 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 023 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….27,737 27,737 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 024 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ……………………………………………………………………………6,417 6,417 025 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………………1,202 1,202 TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY………………………………………….8,887 3,355,777 494,338 8,887 3,850,115 PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 001 BRADLEY PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………………..205,000 205,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[205,000 ] 002 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ……………………………………………..131 479,801 230,359 131 710,160 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[230,359 ] MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 004 STRYKER (MOD) ……………………………………………………………………………………..287,490 –149,300 138,190 Army requested realignment to WTCV–5 ……………………………………………[–149,300 ] 005 STRYKER UPGRADE …………………………………………………………………………………3 21,900 110 338,100 113 360,000 A1 conversions for 5th SBCT ……………………………………………………………[61 ] [188,800 ] Army requested realignment—A1 conversions for 5th SBCT ……………….[49 ] [149,300 ] 006 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ………………………………………………………………………625,424 50,000 675,424

326 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 007 M109 FOV MODIFICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………….26,482 26,482 008 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ………………………………………………..30 351,802 142,000 30 493,802 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[67,000 ] Smooth funding production profile ……………………………………………………[75,000 ] 009 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) …………………………………..26 110,500 42,354 26 152,854 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[42,354 ] 010 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ………………………………………………………………………….2,120 2,120 011 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE …………………………………………………………………..12 62,407 12 62,407 012 M88 FOV MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………4,517 4,517 013 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ……………………………………………………………………………30 142,255 30 142,255 014 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) …………………………………………………………………………927,600 34,000 961,600 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[34,000 ] 015 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………..95 1,075,999 455,000 95 1,530,999 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[455,000 ] WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 018 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) ……………………………………………………1,955 5,126 7,081 Program Increase—M240L and M240B …………………………………………….[5,000 ] Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[126 ] 019 MULTI-ROLE ANTI-ARMOR ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPON S ………………………………23,345 23,345 020 GUN AUTOMATIC 30MM M230 ………………………………………………………………….7,434 7,434 021 MACHINE GUN, CAL .50 M2 ROLL …………………………………………………………….22,330 22,330 022 MORTAR SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………..12,470 180 12,650 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[180 ] 023 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ……………………………………………..697 697 024 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ……………………………………………..46,236 46,236 025 CARBINE ………………………………………………………………………………………………..69,306 1,800 71,106

327 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[1,800 ] 026 SMALL ARMS—FIRE CONTROL …………………………………………………………………7,929 7,929 027 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ……………………………………35,968 3,378 39,346 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[3,378 ] 028 HANDGUN ………………………………………………………………………………………………48,251 48,251 MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 029 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS …………………………………………………….1,684 1,684 030 M777 MODS …………………………………………………………………………………………..3,086 3,086 031 M4 CARBINE MODS …………………………………………………………………………………31,575 4,200 35,775 Additional free-float forward extended rails ………………………………………[4,200 ] 032 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ……………………………………………………………..21,600 4,920 26,520 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[4,920 ] 033 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS ………………………………………………………………3,924 3,924 034 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS …………………………………………………………6,940 7 6,947 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[7 ] 035 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ………………………………………………………………..2,747 2,747 036 M119 MODIFICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………..5,704 5,704 037 MORTAR MODIFICATION ……………………………………………………………………………3,965 3,965 038 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ……………………………………….5,577 5,577 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 039 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) …………………………………………………….3,174 1,397 4,571 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[1,397 ] 040 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ………………………………………………3,284 3,284 041 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ………………………………………..1,640 1,640 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY………………………………………327 4,489,118 110 1,368,521 437 5,857,639 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………………..41,848 3,392 45,240 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[3,392 ] 002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………………..86,199 40 86,239

328 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………..20,158 17 20,175 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[17 ] 004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………………..65,573 189 65,762Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[189 ] 005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………………..8,198 8,198 007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………………..77,995 25,000 102,995 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[25,000 ] 008 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………………..69,781 69,781 MORTAR AMMUNITION 009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………..45,280 218 45,498 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[218 ] 010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………..46,853 484 47,337 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[484 ] 011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………83,003 83,003 TANK AMMUNITION 012 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………168,101 168,101 ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 013 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ……………………………….39,341 39,341 014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………211,442 79,400 290,842 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[79,400 ] 015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ………………………………………………………1,189 100,906 51,700 1,189 152,606 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[51,700 ] 016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL …………………………………236,677 31,900 268,577 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–15,000 ] Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–2,000 ] Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[48,900 ]

329 MINES 017 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………15,905 15,905 ROCKETS 018 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES …………………………………………..4,503 1,572 27,242 1,572 31,745 Army UFR: bunker defeat munitions …………………………………………………[1,572 ] [25,000 ] Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[2,242 ] 019 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………….211,211 20,000 30,000 20,000 241,211 Army UFR: additional HYDRA rockets ………………………………………………..[20,000 ] [30,000 ] OTHER AMMUNITION 020 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………………….10,428 10,428 021 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………44,656 5 44,661 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[5 ] 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………………….19,896 8 19,904 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[8 ] 023 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………………….10,121 10,121 024 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………………….11,464 11,464 MISCELLANEOUS 025 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………5,224 5,224 026 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………4,310 4,310 027 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) ……………………………………………………..11,193 66 11,259 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[66 ] 028 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………….10,500 10,500 029 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) …………………………………………..18,456 18,456 030 CLOSEOUT LIABILITIES …………………………………………………………………………….100 100 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 032 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ……………………………………………………………………………394,133 394,133033 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION …………………………………………..157,535 157,535 034 ARMS INITIATIVE ……………………………………………………………………………………..3,771 3,771 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY……………………………..1,189 2,234,761 21,572 249,661 22,761 2,484,422

330 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 001 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS ………………………………………………………………16,512 16,512 002 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: …………………………………………………………………………16,951 8,000 24,951 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[8,000 ] 003 AMBULANCE, 4 LITTER, 5/4 TON, 4X4 ……………………………………………………….50,123 20,770 70,893 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[20,770 ] 004 GROUND MOBILITY VEHICLES (GMV) …………………………………………………………46,988 –10,000 36,988 Unobligated Balances ……………………………………………………………………..[–10,000 ] 005 ARNG HMMWV MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ………………………………………………..25,000 25,000 Additional HMMWVs ………………………………………………………………………..[25,000 ] 006 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ………………………………………………………………..1,319,436 1,319,436 007 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T (CCE) ………………………………………………………………………..6,480 6,480 008 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) ………………………………………………..132,882 132,882 009 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ………………………………………14,842 14,842 010 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ……………………………………………138,105 115,400 253,505 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[115,400 ] 012 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV …………………………………..31,892 6,682 38,574 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[6,682 ] 013 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS …………………………………………38,128 50,000 88,128 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[50,000 ] 014 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP ………………………………………………………………78,507 377 78,884 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[377 ] 015 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS …………………………………27,000 27,000 SFAB emerging requirements …………………………………………………………..[27,000 ] NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 016 HEAVY ARMORED VEHICLE ……………………………………………………………………….790 790 017 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………..1,390 1,390

331 018 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ……………………………………………………………….15,415 15,415 COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 020 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM …………………………………………………………..150,777 150,777 021 TACTICAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY MOD IN SVC …………………………………………469,117 64,000 533,117 Additional TCN-L, NOSC-L, and next generation embedded kits for IBCTs and SBCTs.[64,000 ] 022 SITUATION INFORMATION TRANSPORT ………………………………………………………..62,727 62,727 023 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY …………………………………..13,895 13,895 024 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) …………………………………………………………………4,866 4,866 COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 027 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS ………………………………….108,133 108,133 028 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS …………………………..56,737 56,737 029 SHF TERM ………………………………………………………………………………………………13,100 13,100 030 SMART-T (SPACE) ……………………………………………………………………………………9,160 9,160 031 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS …………………………………………………………………….25,647 25,647 032 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) ………………………………………………………..37,401 37,401 COMM—C3 SYSTEM 036 COE TACTICAL SERVER INFRASTRUCTURE (TSI) ………………………………………….20,500 20,500 COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 037 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………..1,560 1,560 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[1,560 ] 038 HANDHELD MANPACK SMALL FORM FIT (HMS) ……………………………………………351,565 351,565 040 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) …………………………………………………………..4,641 4,641 041 TRACTOR DESK ……………………………………………………………………………………….2,187 2,187042 TRACTOR RIDE ……………………………………………………………………………………….9,411 13,200 22,611 Army UFR: program increase ……………………………………………………………[13,200 ] 044 SPIDER FAMILY OF NETWORKED MUNITIONS INCR ………………………………………17,515 17,515 045 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM ………………………………819 819 046 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ………………………………………………………………………..17,807 17,807 047 COTS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………..191,835 17,000 208,835 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–5,000 ] Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[22,000 ]

332 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 048 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ……………………………….25,177 25,177 COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 050 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE (MIP) ……………………………………………………….9,740 9,740 051 DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION INITIATIVE …………………………………………………2,667 2,667 INFORMATION SECURITY 053 FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS …………………………………………………………………………..8,319 8,319 054 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP ……………………………………….2,000 2,000 055 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) ……………………………………………………88,337 3 88,340 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[3 ] 056 DEFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS ……………………………………………………………….51,343 51,343 057 INSIDER THREAT PROGRAM—UNIT ACTIVITY MONITO …………………………………330 330 058 PERSISTENT CYBER TRAINING ENVIRONMENT …………………………………………….3,000 3,000 COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 059 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ……………………………………………………………34,434 34,434 COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 060 INFORMATION SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………..95,558 95,558 061 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ………………………………4,736 4,736 062 HOME STATION MISSION COMMAND CENTERS (HSMCC) ………………………………24,479 24,479 063 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ………………………………..216,433 9,050 225,483 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[9,050 ] ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 066 JTT/CIBS-M (MIP) ……………………………………………………………………………………10,268 10,268 068 DCGS-A (MIP) …………………………………………………………………………………………261,863 261,863 069 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) (MIP) ……………………………………….5,434 5,434 070 TROJAN (MIP) …………………………………………………………………………………………20,623 600 21,223 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[600 ]

333 071 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ………………………………………………….45,998 45,998 072 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING & COLL(CHARCS)(MIP) ……………………………………296 296 076 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MIP) ………………………………………………………………..410 410 ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 077 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR …………………………………………………..9,165 9,165 078 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ………………………………………..5,875 5,875 079 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) (MIP) ………………………………………………………………………..8,497 8,497 083 CI MODERNIZATION (MIP) ………………………………………………………………………..486 486 ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 084 SENTINEL MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………..79,629 79,629 085 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ……………………………………………………………………………153,180 86 153,266 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[86 ] 086 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ……………………………2,861 2,861 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[2,861 ] 087 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF ………………………………………22,882 22,882 088 RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………….17,393 11 17,404 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[11 ] 090 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ………………………………………46,740 262 47,002 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[262 ] 091 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ……………………………………………………………140,737 –8,775 131,962 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[525 ] Unexecutable funds ………………………………………………………………………..[–9,300 ] 093 PROFILER ……………………………………………………………………………………………….171 171 094 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) …………………………………………..405,239 26,146 431,385 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[26,146 ] 095 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) ………………………………………………..66,574 66,574 096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) ………………………………………………………………….20,783 4,050 24,833 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[4,050 ] 097 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ………………………………………………………8,553 8,553 098 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………21,489 21,489 099 COUNTERFIRE RADARS …………………………………………………………………………….162,121 162,121

334 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 100 ARMY COMMAND POST INTEGRATED INFRASTRUCTURE ( …………………………….2,855 2,855 101 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ……………………………………………………………………….19,153 19,153 102 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS ……………………………………….33,837 33,837 103 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) …………………………………………………..5,136 5,136 104 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ………………………………..18,329 18,329 105 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ………………………………………………………..38,015 38,015 106 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) ………………………………….15,164 15,164 107 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP ………………………………29,239 29,239 109 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET …………………………………6,823 6,823 110 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE) ……………………………………………………….1,177 1,177 ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 111 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………..12,265 12,265 112 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ………………………………………………………201,875 201,875 113 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ……………………………….10,976 10,976 114 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ………………………………………………66,330 66,330 115 CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………5,927 5,927 116 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) ……………………………………….27,896 27,896 ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 117 TACTICAL DIGITAL MEDIA …………………………………………………………………………4,392 4,392 118 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ………………………………………1,970 1,970 ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 119 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) …………………………………………………………..506 506 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 120A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………4,501 4,501 CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 121 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………..2,314 27 2,341

335 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[27 ] 122 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ………………………………………………7,478 7,478 124 CBRN DEFENSE ………………………………………………………………………………………173,954 317 174,271 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[317 ] BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 125 TACTICAL BRIDGING ………………………………………………………………………………..98,229 98,229 126 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON …………………………………………………………….64,438 64,438 127 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ………………………………………….79,916 79,916 ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 128 HANDHELD STANDOFF MINEFIELD DETECTION SYS-HST ……………………………….8,471 8,471 129 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ……………………………………29,883 29,883 130 AREA MINE DETECTION SYSTEM (AMDS) ……………………………………………………11,594 1 11,595 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[1 ] 131 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) …………………………………………..40,834 40,834 132 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ……………………………………………..4,029 4,029 133 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ……………………………………………..14,208 14,208 134 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………….31,456 31,456 136 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………..1,748 1 1,749 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[1 ] 137 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………..7,829 7,829 138 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ……………………………………………………………….5,806 5,806 COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 139 HEATERS AND ECU’S ……………………………………………………………………………….9,852 9,852 140 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ………………………………………………………………………….1,103 1,103 141 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) ……………………………………..5,875 5,875 142 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………………92,487 92,487 143 MOBILE SOLDIER POWER …………………………………………………………………………30,774 30,774 145 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………..17,521 17,521 146 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM …………………………….44,855 44,855 147 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS …………………………………17,173 17,173 148 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ……………………………………………………………2,000 2,000

336 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 149 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………1,770 1,770 150 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER …………………………………………39,730 39,730 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 151 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL …………………………………………………………………….57,752 20,000 77,752 Simulators and other technologies to reduce the use of live animal tis-sue for medical training.[20,000 ] MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 152 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS …………………………………………….37,722 37,722 153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ………………………………………………………..4,985 268 5,253 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[268 ] CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 155 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ……………………………………………………………………….7,961 7,961 156 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR …………………………………………………………………………..1,355 1,355 158 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ……………………………………………………………………………..13,031 13,031 159 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ………………………………………….46,048 46,048 160 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ……………………………………980 7,500 8,480 Program increase—additional ERACC systems ………………………………….[7,500 ] 161 CONST EQUIP ESP …………………………………………………………………………………..37,017 37,017162 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) …………………………………………………..6,103 6,103 RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 163 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ………………………………………………………………………….27,711 27,711 164 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) ……………………………………………………..8,385 8,385 GENERATORS 165 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ………………………………………………………133,772 133,772 166 TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER RECAPITALIZATION ………………………………………….8,333 8,333 MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT

337 167 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ……………………………………………………………………………..12,901 12,901 TRAINING EQUIPMENT 168 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT ……………………………………………………..123,228 123,228 169 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM ………………………………………………………………228,598 228,598 170 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER …………………………………………………………..33,080 33,080 171 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ………………………………………….32,700 32,700 172 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING ………………………………25,161 25,161 TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 173 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………..4,270 4,270 174 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ………………………………………..76,295 9,495 85,790 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[9,495 ] 175 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ………………………………………………9,806 9,806 OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 176 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR ……………………………………………………………………4,368 33 4,401 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………….[33 ] 177 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………9,879 9,879 178 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ………………………………………………………54,043 54,043 179 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………6,633 6,633 180 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ………………………………………….49,797 49,797 181 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ………………………………………………………….2,301 2,301 182 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING …………………………………………………..11,608 11,608 183 TRACTOR YARD ………………………………………………………………………………………4,956 4,956 OPA2 184 INITIAL SPARES—C&E …………………………………………………………………………….9,817 9,817 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY…………………………………………….7,999,529 410,925 8,410,454 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 001 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET ………………………………………………………………….24 1,937,553 –30,000 24 1,907,553 Excess NRE and Support Costs ………………………………………………………..[–30,000 ] 002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..58,799 58,799 003 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ……………………………………………………………………….9 1,144,958 –12,900 9 1,132,058

338 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost Production Effiencies ………………………………………………………………………[–12,900 ] 004 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..140,010 140,010 005 JSF STOVL ………………………………………………………………………………………………20 2,312,847 –36,300 20 2,276,547 Production Efficiences …………………………………………………………………….[–36,300 ] 006 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..228,492 228,492 007 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) ……………………………………………………………………………..8 1,113,804 –24,000 8 1,089,804 Support cost growth ……………………………………………………………………….[–24,000 ] 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..161,079 161,079 009 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ……………………………………………………………………………….7 806,337 7 806,337 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..36,955 36,955 011 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) ………………………………………………………………25 820,755 25 820,755 014 P–8A POSEIDON ……………………………………………………………………………………..10 1,803,753 –26,000 10 1,777,753 Excessive CFE Electronics cost growth ……………………………………………..[–5,000 ] Excessive GFE Electronics cost growth ……………………………………………..[–1,000 ] Excessive support cost growth …………………………………………………………[–20,000 ] 015 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..180,000 180,000 016 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ……………………………………………………………………………….4 742,693 –16,300 4 726,393 Excessive CFE cost growth ………………………………………………………………[–5,800 ] Excessive Non-reoccurring cost growth ……………………………………………..[–2,900 ] Excessive Other ILS cost growth ………………………………………………………[–1,700 ] Excessive peculiar equipment cost growth ………………………………………..[–5,900 ] 017 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..240,734 240,734 AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 018 C–40A …………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 206,000 –206,000 2 0 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–206,000 ]

339 020 KC–130J ………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 160,433 2 160,433 021 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..110,013 110,013 022 MQ–4 TRITON …………………………………………………………………………………………3 568,743 –23,950 3 544,793 Unit and support cost growth ………………………………………………………….[–23,950 ] 023 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..58,522 58,522 024 MQ–8 UAV ……………………………………………………………………………………………..54,761 54,761 025 STUASL0 UAV …………………………………………………………………………………………14,866 14,866 026 VH–92A EXECUTIVE HELO ………………………………………………………………………..6 649,015 6 649,015MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 027 AEA SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………25,277 25,277 028 AV–8 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………….58,577 58,577 029 ADVERSARY ……………………………………………………………………………………………14,606 14,606 030 F–18 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………….1,213,482 –2,500 1,210,982 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–2,500 ] 031 H–53 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………….70,997 70,997 032 SH–60 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………..130,661 130,661 033 H–1 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………87,143 87,143 034 EP–3 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………….3,633 3,633 035 P–3 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………803 803 036 E–2 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………88,780 88,780 037 TRAINER A/C SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………….11,660 11,660 038 C–2A …………………………………………………………………………………………………….11,327 11,327 039 C–130 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………..79,075 79,075 040 FEWSG …………………………………………………………………………………………………..597 597 041 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ……………………………………………………………….8,932 8,932 042 E–6 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………181,821 181,821 043 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ……………………………………………………………..23,566 23,566 044 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT …………………………………………………………………….7,620 7,620 045 T–45 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………….195,475 195,475 046 POWER PLANT CHANGES ………………………………………………………………………….21,521 21,521 047 JPATS SERIES …………………………………………………………………………………………27,644 27,644 048 AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT MODS …………………………………………………………………15,864 15,864

340 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 049 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………166,306 25,000 191,306Navy UFR: F/A–18E/F Super Hornet Adaptive RADAR countermeasures ..[25,000 ] 050 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES …………………………………………………………………..117,551 –5,000 112,551 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–5,000 ] 051 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM ……………………………………………………..1,994 1,994 052 ID SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………40,696 40,696 053 P–8 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………71,251 71,251 054 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION …………………………………………………………………………11,590 11,590 055 MQ–8 SERIES …………………………………………………………………………………………37,907 37,907 057 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY …………………………………………………………….214,820 214,820 058 NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) …………………………………………………………….952 952 059 F–35 STOVL SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………..36,618 36,618 060 F–35 CV SERIES …………………………………………………………………………………….21,236 21,236 061 QRC ………………………………………………………………………………………………………101,499 101,499 062 MQ–4 SERIES …………………………………………………………………………………………48,278 48,278 063 RQ–21 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………….6,904 6,904AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 064 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….1,792,920 40,000 1,832,920 F–35B Spares ………………………………………………………………………………..[40,000 ] AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 065 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………421,606 –10,000 411,606 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–10,000 ] 066 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ……………………………………………………………..24,496 24,496 067 WAR CONSUMABLES ………………………………………………………………………………..42,108 42,108 068 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES …………………………………………………………………1,444 1,444 069 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………49,489 49,489

341 070 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ……………………………………………………….1,951 1,951 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY………………………………………..120 19,041,799 –327,950 120 18,713,849 WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 001 TRIDENT II MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………1,078,750 1,078,750 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 002 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ……………………………………………………………….6,998 6,998 STRATEGIC MISSILES 003 TOMAHAWK …………………………………………………………………………………………….98,570 198 114,800 198 213,370 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–81,000 ] Program Increase—198 missile ……………………………………………………….[198 ] [216,000 ] Shutdown costs early to need ………………………………………………………….[–20,200 ] TACTICAL MISSILES 004 AMRAAM ………………………………………………………………………………………………..140 211,058 140 211,058 005 SIDEWINDER …………………………………………………………………………………………..191 77,927 59 45,000 250 122,927 Navy UFR: additional AIM 9–X missiles …………………………………………….[59 ] [45,000 ] 006 JSOW ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,330 1,330 007 STANDARD MISSILE …………………………………………………………………………………125 490,210 125 490,210 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..125,683 125,683 009 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ……………………………………………………………………….750 91,272 750 91,272 010 RAM ………………………………………………………………………………………………………120 96,221 –2,300 120 93,921 Excess Production Support ………………………………………………………………[–2,300 ] 011 JOINT AIR GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ………………………………………………………….75 24,109 75 24,109 014 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) ………………………………….31 11,378 31 11,378 015 AERIAL TARGETS …………………………………………………………………………………….137,137 137,137 016 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………..3,318 3,318 017 LRASM …………………………………………………………………………………………………..25 81,190 10 30,000 35 111,190 Navy Unfunded Requirement ……………………………………………………………[10 ] [30,000 ] 018 LCS OTH MISSILE ……………………………………………………………………………………8 18,156 8 18,156 MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 019 ESSM …………………………………………………………………………………………………….45 98,384 –2,000 45 9

342 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost Excess Production Support ………………………………………………………………[–2,000 ] 020 HARPOON MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………..14,840 14,840021 HARM MODS …………………………………………………………………………………………..187,985 187,985 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 023 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ……………………………………………………………..2,006 2,006 024 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON …………………………………………………………66,779 66,779 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 025 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………..62,008 62,008 TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 026 SSTD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..6,353 6,353 027 MK–48 TORPEDO …………………………………………………………………………………….45 92,616 5 11,000 50 103,616 Navy Unfunded Requirement ……………………………………………………………[5 ] [11,000 ] 028 ASW TARGETS …………………………………………………………………………………………12,324 12,324 MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 029 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS …………………………………………………………………………..105,946 –10,500 95,446 HAAWC unit cost growth ………………………………………………………………….[–6,500 ] Non Recurring Engineering excess growth …………………………………………[–4,000 ] 030 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ………………………………………………………………..40,005 40,005 031 QUICKSTRIKE MINE ………………………………………………………………………………….9,758 9,758 SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 032 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….79,371 79,371 033 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………………………..3,872 3,872 DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 034 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ……………………………………………………….3,726 3,726 GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 035 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ……………………………………………………………………15,067 15,067

343 MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 036 CIWS MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………63,318 63,318 037 COAST GUARD WEAPONS …………………………………………………………………………40,823 40,823 038 GUN MOUNT MODS ………………………………………………………………………………….74,618 74,618 039 LCS MODULE WEAPONS …………………………………………………………………………..90 11,350 –5,800 90 5,550 Mission Module Early to need ………………………………………………………….[–5,800 ] 041 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ………………………………………………22,249 22,249 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 043 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….135,688 –5,000 130,688 Unjustified program cost growth ………………………………………………………[–5,000 ] TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY………………………………………..1,645 3,702,393 272 175,200 1,917 3,877,593 PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ……………………………………………………………………..79,871 79,871 002 JDAM ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,688 87,900 3,688 87,900 003 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………151,431 151,431 004 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION …………………………………………………………………….11,344 11,344 005 PRACTICE BOMBS …………………………………………………………………………………..49,471 49,471 006 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES …………………………………………………56,227 56,227 007 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ………………………………………………………66,382 66,382 008 JATOS …………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,907 2,907 009 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION …………………………………………………………………..72,657 72,657 010 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION ………………………………………………..33,613 33,613 011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION …………………………………………………………………42,142 42,142 012 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO …………………………………………………….49,888 49,888 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ……………………………………………………………….10,931 10,931 015 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………..1,106 1,106 MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 019 MORTARS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….28,266 28,266 021 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS …………………………………………………………………..63,664 63,664 022 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION …………………………………………………………….59,295 59,295

344 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 026 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ………………………………………………………………….31,577 31,577 028 AMMO MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………15,001 15,001 029 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS …………………………………………………………………………….86,297 86,297 030 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….6,239 6,239 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC……………………………….3,688 1,006,209 3,688 1,006,209 SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE SHIPS 001 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..3,005,330 82,700 3,088,030 Accelerated Advance Procurement …………………………………………………….[150,000 ] Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus for the foundry propeller center [–19,000 ] Ordnance Early to Need …………………………………………………………………..[–48,300 ] OTHER WARSHIPS 002 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM …………………………………………………………..1,598,181 1 –49,100 1 1,549,081 Authorize CVN81—One ship …………………………………………………………….[1 ] Excess change order rate ………………………………………………………………..[–49,100 ] 004 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ……………………………………………………………………2 4,373,382 938,000 2 5,311,382 EOQ AP for submarine in FY 2022 and 2023 …………………………………….[1,003,000 ] Excess change order rate ………………………………………………………………..[–20,000 ] Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–45,000 ] 005 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..2,796,401 2,796,401 007 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..449,597 449,597 008 DDG 1000 ………………………………………………………………………………………………270,965 270,965 009 DDG–51 …………………………………………………………………………………………………3 5,253,327 –312,000 3 4,941,327 DDG Flight III Multiyear Procurement Savings ……………………………………[–150,000 ] Excessive Basic Construction Unit Cost Growth …………………………………[–

345 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..391,928 391,928 011 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP …………………………………………………………………………..1 646,244 2 950,000 3 1,596,244 Program Increase—Two ships …………………………………………………………[2 ] [950,000 ] AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 012A ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..150,000 150,000 EOQ for LPD Flight II Multi-year Procurement ……………………………………[150,000 ] 013 EXPEDITIONARY SEA BASE (ESB) ………………………………………………………………1 650,000 –20,000 1 630,000 Accelerated contracts learning curve ………………………………………………..[–20,000 ] AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 016 TAO FLEET OILER ……………………………………………………………………………………2 977,104 –20,000 2 957,104 Accelerated contracts learning curve ………………………………………………..[–20,000 ] 017 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..75,046 75,046 018 TOWING, SALVAGE, AND RESCUE SHIP (ATS) ……………………………………………..1 80,517 –5,000 1 75,517 Accelerated contracts learning curve ………………………………………………..[–5,000 ] 020 LCU 1700 ………………………………………………………………………………………………2 41,520 2 41,520 021 OUTFITTING …………………………………………………………………………………………….634,038 –45,000 589,038 Outfitting and Post Delivery early to need ………………………………………..[–45,000 ] 022 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR ……………………………………………………………………5 325,375 3 182,500 8 507,875 Program Increase—Three vessels …………………………………………………….[3 ] [182,500 ] 023 SERVICE CRAFT ………………………………………………………………………………………72,062 72,062 024 LCAC SLEP …………………………………………………………………………………………….1 23,321 1 23,321 028 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS …………………………………………..207,099 207,099 TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY……………………………..18 21,871,437 6 1,852,100 24 23,723,537 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 001 SURFACE POWER EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………..19,700 19,700 GENERATORS 003 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E ……………………………………………………………………23,495 23,495 NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 004 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….63,330 63,330 OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT

346 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 005 SUB PERISCOPE, IMAGING AND SUPT EQUIP PROG …………………………………….178,421 178,421 006 DDG MOD ………………………………………………………………………………………………487,999 103,200 591,199 AWS Installation Unit Cost Growth ……………………………………………………[–4,800 ] Navy Unfunded Requirement ……………………………………………………………[43,000 ] Program Increase—One additional Combat System …………………………..[65,000 ] 007 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………..28,143 28,143 008 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD …………………………………………………..2,248 2,248 009 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ……………………………………………………………………………………37,694 37,694 010 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………..20,883 20,883 011 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………37,155 37,155 012 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………66,328 66,328 013 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………..47,241 47,241 014 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ……………………………………………………………………………27,987 27,987 015 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………..65,033 65,033 016 DDG 1000 CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………89,700 89,700 017 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ……………………………………………………..22,254 22,254 018 DSSP EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………3,629 3,629 019 CG MODERNIZATION ………………………………………………………………………………..276,446 –3,900 272,546 Integrated Ship Controls Unit Cost Growth ……………………………………….[–3,900 ] 020 LCAC ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,709 3,709 021 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………78,807 –30,400 48,407 Insufficient transition strategy …………………………………………………………[–30,400 ] 022 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….126,865 126,865 023 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ……………………………………………………………..2,966 2,966 024 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ………………………………………………………….11,968 11,968

347 025 REACTOR POWER UNITS …………………………………………………………………………..346,325 –346,325 0Early to need ………………………………………………………………………………….[–346,325 ] 026 REACTOR COMPONENTS …………………………………………………………………………..497,063 497,063 OCEAN ENGINEERING 027 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………….10,706 10,706 SMALL BOATS 028 STANDARD BOATS …………………………………………………………………………………..49,771 49,771 PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 029 OPERATING FORCES IPE …………………………………………………………………………..225,181 225,181 OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 031 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………46,732 46,732 032 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES …………………………………………………………………..124,147 124,147 033 LCS ASW MISSION MODULES ……………………………………………………………………57,294 –49,900 7,394 Late test event for VDS and MFTA ……………………………………………………[–49,900 ] 034 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES ……………………………………………………………………26,006 –11,000 15,006 Surface to Surface MM Early to need ……………………………………………….[–11,000 ] 035 LCS IN-SERVICE MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………..70,526 70,526 LOGISTIC SUPPORT 036 LSD MIDLIFE & MODERNIZATION ………………………………………………………………4,784 4,784 SHIP SONARS 037 SPQ–9B RADAR ………………………………………………………………………………………20,309 20,309 038 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM …………………………………………………..115,459 115,459 039 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………318,189 318,189 040 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………….10,134 10,134 ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 041 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM …………………………………………………23,815 23,815 042 SSTD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..11,277 11,277 043 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………….237,780 –30,000 207,780 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–30,000 ] 044 SURTASS ………………………………………………………………………………………………..57,872 –10,000 47,872 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus for SURTASS-E ……………………..[–10,000 ] ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT

348 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 045 AN/SLQ–32 …………………………………………………………………………………………….420,344 –23,100 397,244 Excess Ship Installation Unit Cost Growth ………………………………………..[–23,100 ] RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 046 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT …………………………………………………………………………..220,883 220,883 047 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) ………………………………………………..4,028 4,028 OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 048 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY ……………………………………………………44,173 –1,600 42,573 Excess Production Engineering Support …………………………………………….[–1,600 ] 049 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ……………………………..10,991 10,991 050 ATDLS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………34,526 34,526 051 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ……………………………………….3,769 3,769 052 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT …………………………………………………….35,709 35,709 053 SHALLOW WATER MCM …………………………………………………………………………….8,616 8,616 054 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) …………………………………………………………..10,703 10,703 055 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ………………………………………………2,626 2,626 056 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ……………………………………………………..9,467 9,467 AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 057 ASHORE ATC EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………………70,849 70,849 058 AFLOAT ATC EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………….47,890 47,890 059 ID SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………26,163 26,163 060 JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEM ( ………………………………..38,094 38,094 061 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………11,966 11,966 OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 062 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………….42,010 42,010 063 DCGS-N …………………………………………………………………………………………………12,896 12,896 064 CANES …………………………………………………………………………………………………..423,027 423,027

349 065 RADIAC ………………………………………………………………………………………………….8,175 8,175 066 CANES-INTELL ………………………………………………………………………………………..54,465 54,465 067 GPETE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………5,985 5,985 068 MASF …………………………………………………………………………………………………….5,413 5,413 069 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY ……………………………………………………..6,251 6,251 070 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ……………………………………………………………..4,183 4,183 071 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….148,350 148,350 SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 072 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS …………………………………………………..45,450 45,450 073 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ……………………………………………………….105,087 105,087 074 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ………………………………………………………41,123 41,123 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 075 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………30,897 30,897 076 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………78,580 78,580 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 077 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS …………………………………………………….41,205 41,205 078 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) …………………………………………………………..113,885 113,885 SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 079 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) …………………………………..4,292 4,292 CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 080 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ……………………………………………….153,526 153,526 081 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ………………………………………………………………..951 951 CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 082 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP ……………………………………………………14,209 14,209 OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 086 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………40,713 40,713 SONOBUOYS 088 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………………..177,891 38,300 216,191 Navy Unfunded Requirement ……………………………………………………………[38,300 ] AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 089 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………….93,864 93,864 090 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….111,724 111,724

350 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 091 ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR (AAG) ………………………………………………………….11,054 11,054 092 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………….21,072 21,072 093 DCRS/DPL ………………………………………………………………………………………………656 656094 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ……………………………………………………….11,299 11,299 095 LAMPS EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….594 594 096 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………..39,374 39,374 097 UMCS-UNMAN CARRIER AVIATION(UCA)MISSION CNTRL ………………………………35,405 35,405 SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 098 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….5,337 5,337 SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 099 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………….213,090 –5,000 208,090 Unjustified Stalker Growth ……………………………………………………………….[–5,000 ] 100 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………….92,890 92,890 FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 101 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP …………………………………………………………271,817 271,817 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 102 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………..129,501 –5,500 124,001 Excessive Unit Cost Growth for Install ……………………………………………..[–5,500 ] 103 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………19,436 19,436 OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 104 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP ……………………………………………………14,258 14,258 105 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….5,378 5,378 OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 106 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ………………………………………………………..65,543 65,543 107 SURFACE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….230,425 230,425 CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

351 108 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………..4,867 4,867 109 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS …………………………………………………………………….2,674 2,674 110 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP ……………………………………………………20,994 20,994 111 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………17,189 17,189 112 TACTICAL VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………………………..19,916 19,916 113 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………………7,400 7,400 114 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………..2,713 2,713 115 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ……………………………………………………………………….35,540 35,540 116 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………1,155 1,155 SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………..18,786 18,786 118 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ……………………………………………………….5,375 5,375 119 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………..580,371 580,371 TRAINING DEVICES 120 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….3,400 3,400 121 TRAINING AND EDUCATION EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………..24,283 –2,100 22,183 Excess Production Support ………………………………………………………………[–2,100 ] COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 122 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………66,681 66,681 123 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………..3,352 3,352 125 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………..1,984 1,984 126 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………..15,131 15,131 127 C4ISR EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………..3,576 3,576 128 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………..31,902 31,902 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………175,436 175,436 130 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………..25,393 25,393 OTHER 133 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ………………………………………………….96,269 96,269 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 133A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………15,681 15,681 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 134 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….326,838 326,838

352 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY…………………………………………….9,414,355 –377,325 9,037,030 PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 001 AAV7A1 PIP ……………………………………………………………………………………………156,249 –20,000 136,249 Program reduction ………………………………………………………………………….[–20,000 ] 002 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE 1.1 …………………………………………………………..30 167,478 30 167,478 003 LAV PIP ………………………………………………………………………………………………….43,701 43,701 ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 005 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER ……………………………………………………47,158 47,158 006 ARTILLERY WEAPONS SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………….134,246 134,246 007 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ……………………………….40,687 40,687 OTHER SUPPORT 008 MODIFICATION KITS …………………………………………………………………………………22,904 22,904GUIDED MISSILES 009 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE ………………………………………………………………….18,334 18,334 010 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE-JAVELIN ………………………………………………………………….5 3,020 5 3,020 011 FAMILY ANTI-ARMOR WEAPON SYSTEMS (FOAAWS) ……………………………………..13,760 13,760 012 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE-TOW ……………………………………………………………………….59,702 59,702 COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 013 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C …………………………..35,467 35,467 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 014 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………….46,081 –4,600 41,481 Program Reduction …………………………………………………………………………[–4,600 ] OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 015 MODIFICATION KITS …………………………………………………………………………………971 971

353 COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 016 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ………………………………………………69,203 –7,000 62,203 Program Reduction …………………………………………………………………………[–7,000 ] 017 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………….14,269 14,269 RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 018 RADAR SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………….6,694 6,694 019 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ………………………………………….6 224,969 6 224,969 INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 021 GCSS-MC ……………………………………………………………………………………………….1,187 1,187 022 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………………60,189 60,189 023 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………73,848 –6,000 67,848 Unjustified request for TSCS Inc 1 …………………………………………………..[–6,000 ] 025 UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS (INTEL) …………………………………………………………….3,848 3,848 026 DCGS-MC ……………………………………………………………………………………………….16,081 16,081 OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 030 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) ……………………………………..87,120 87,120 031 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES …………………………………………………………….68,914 68,914 032 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………….124,838 124,838 033 RADIO SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………..279,680 –15,000 264,680 Program reduction ………………………………………………………………………….[–15,000 ] 034 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS …………………………………………………..36,649 36,649 035 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ……………………………………………….83,971 83,971 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 035A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………3,626 3,626 ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 036 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………….25,441 25,441 TACTICAL VEHICLES 037 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ………………………………………………………….11,392 11,392 038 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ………………………………………………………………..607,011 214 69,000 214 676,011 Optimize production profile ……………………………………………………………..[214 ] [69,000 ] 039 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ………………………………………………………………..2,393 2,393 040 TRAILERS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….6,540 6,540

354 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 041 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT ………………………………………………..496 496 042 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………54 54 043 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED …………………………………………………………………21,062 21,062 044 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………..5,290 5,290 045 EOD SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………………………………..47,854 47,854 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 046 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………28,306 28,306 GENERAL PROPERTY 047 FIELD MEDICAL EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………..33,513 33,513 048 TRAINING DEVICES ………………………………………………………………………………….52,040 52,040049 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………….36,156 3,500 39,656 GPS Grade Control Systems (GCS) and Survey Sets …………………………..[3,500 ] 050 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE VEH (ITV) ……………………………………606 606 OTHER SUPPORT 051 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….11,608 11,608 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 053 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….25,804 25,804 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS…………………………………………41 2,860,410 214 19,900 255 2,880,310 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 001 F–35 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..48 4,261,021 –83,340 48 4,177,681 Production Efficiences …………………………………………………………………….[–83,340 ] 002 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..406,000 406,000 OTHER COMBAT AIRCRAFT

355 003 C–135B …………………………………………………………………………………………………2 222,176 –2 –222,176 0 Ahead of need ………………………………………………………………………………..[–2 ] [–222,176 ] TACTICAL AIRLIFT 004 C–130J ………………………………………………………………………………………………….35,858 35,858 005 KC–46A TANKER ……………………………………………………………………………………..15 2,559,911 –3 –549,000 12 2,010,911 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus—three aircraft …………………….[–3 ] [–499,000 ] Interim contractor support early to need …………………………………………..[–50,000 ] OTHER AIRLIFT 007 HC–130J ………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 129,437 1 129,437 009 MC–130J ……………………………………………………………………………………………….6 770,201 –100,000 6 670,201 Interim supply support costs unjustified growth ………………………………..[–100,000 ] 010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..218,000 218,000 HELICOPTERS 012 COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER …………………………………………………………………10 680,201 10 680,201 MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 014 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ……………………………………………………………………………..4 2,719 4 2,719 OTHER AIRCRAFT 015 TARGET DRONES …………………………………………………………………………………….48 139,053 48 139,053 016 COMPASS CALL MODS ……………………………………………………………………………..1 108,113 1 108,113 018 MQ–9 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 221,707 2 42,800 10 264,507 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………[2 ] [42,800 ] STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 020 B–2A …………………………………………………………………………………………………….60,301 –23,000 37,301 MOP modifications excess to need ……………………………………………………[–23,000 ] 021 B–1B …………………………………………………………………………………………………….51,290 51,290 022 B–52 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….105,519 –14,700 90,819 Technical adjustment (move to R–173) …………………………………………….[–14,700 ] TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 024 A–10 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..98,720 65,000 163,720 Additional A–10 wing replacements …………………………………………………[65,000 ] 025 C–130J ………………………………………………………………………………………………….10,831 10,831 026 F–15 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..548,109 548,109

356 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 027 F–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..324,312 324,312 028 F–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 11 029 F–22A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………250,710 250,710 031 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………247,271 247,271032 F–15 EPAW …………………………………………………………………………………………….147,685 67,200 214,885 Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS) ………[67,200 ] 033 INCREMENT 3.2B …………………………………………………………………………………….9,007 9,007 035 KC–46A TANKER ……………………………………………………………………………………..8,547 8,547 AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 036 C–5 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………77,845 77,845 038 C–17A …………………………………………………………………………………………………..102,121 102,121 039 C–21 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….17,516 17,516 040 C–32A …………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,537 4,537 041 C–37A …………………………………………………………………………………………………..419 419 TRAINER AIRCRAFT 043 GLIDER MODS …………………………………………………………………………………………137 137 044 T–6 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….22,550 22,550 045 T–1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….21,952 21,952 046 T–38 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..70,623 70,623 OTHER AIRCRAFT 047 U–2 MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………..48,774 48,774 048 KC–10A (ATCA) ………………………………………………………………………………………11,104 11,104 049 C–12 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….4,900 4,900 050 VC–25A MOD ………………………………………………………………………………………….36,938 36,938 051 C–40 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….251 251 052 C–130 …………………………………………………………………………………………………..22,094 129,000 151,094

357 Program Increase–eight blade proppeler upgrade (88 kits) ……………….[55,000 ] Program Increase–engine enhancement program (88 kits) ………………..[74,000 ] 053 C–130J MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………..132,045 132,045 054 C–135 …………………………………………………………………………………………………..113,076 113,076 055 OC–135B ……………………………………………………………………………………………….5,913 5,913 056 COMPASS CALL MODS ……………………………………………………………………………..49,885 49,885 057 COMBAT FLIGHT INSPECTION (CFIN) ………………………………………………………….499 499 058 RC–135 …………………………………………………………………………………………………394,532 394,532 059 E–3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….133,906 133,906 060 E–4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….67,858 67,858 061 E–8 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….9,919 9,919 062 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CNTR SYS (AWACS) 40/45 ………………………………….57,780 57,780 063 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ………………………………………….14,293 14,293 064 H–1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,940 2,940 065 H–60 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….55,466 55,466 066 RQ–4 MODS …………………………………………………………………………………………..23,715 1 105,000 1 128,715 EQ–4 BACN aircraft increase …………………………………………………………..[1 ] [105,000 ] 067 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS …………………………………………………………………….37,754 37,754 068 OTHER AIRCRAFT …………………………………………………………………………………….62,010 62,010 069 MQ–9 MODS …………………………………………………………………………………………..171,548 171,548 071 CV–22 MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………….60,416 60,416 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 072 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………956,408 60,000 1,016,408 F–35A Spares …………………………………………………………………………………[60,000 ] COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 073 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP …………………………………………………81,241 81,241 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 076 B–2A …………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,763 1,763 077 B–2B …………………………………………………………………………………………………….35,861 35,861 078 B–52 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….12,819 12,819 079 C–17A …………………………………………………………………………………………………..10,114 10,114 081 F–15 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,545 2,545

358 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 083 F–16 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..11,718 –4,000 7,718 F–16 Line Shutdown ……………………………………………………………………….[–4,000 ] 084 F–22A ……………………………………………………………………………………………………14,489 14,489 085 OTHER AIRCRAFT …………………………………………………………………………………….9,928 9,928 086 RQ–4 POST PRODUCTION CHARGES ………………………………………………………….40,641 –37,300 3,341 RQ–4 Post Production Support …………………………………………………………[–37,300 ] INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 088 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS ………………………………………………………………….17,378 17,378 WAR CONSUMABLES 090 WAR CONSUMABLES ………………………………………………………………………………..29,342 29,342 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 091 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES …………………………………………………………………1,502,386 –109,000 1,393,386 Classified program adjustment ………………………………………………………..[–109,000 ] CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 095 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………28,278 28,278 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE……………………………….143 16,206,937 –2 –673,516 141 15,533,421 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 001 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ……………………………………………………….36,786 36,786 TACTICAL 002 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE …………………………………………………….312 430,708 312 430,708 003 LRASM0 …………………………………………………………………………………………………12 44,185 12 44,185 004 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) …………………………………………………………………………….256 121,253 256 121,253 005 AMRAAM ………………………………………………………………………………………………..220 337,886 220 337,886 006 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE …………………………………………………………………..1,338 113,765 1,338 113,765

359 007 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ………………………………………………………………………….2,917 105,034 2,917 105,034 008 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ……………………………………………………………………….510 100,861 510 100,861 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 009 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION ………………………………………………..787 787 CLASS IV 010 ICBM FUZE MOD …………………………………………………………………………………….15,767 15,767011 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..4,100 4,100 012 MM III MODIFICATIONS …………………………………………………………………………….129,199 129,199013 AGM–65D MAVERICK ……………………………………………………………………………….288 288 014 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ……………………………………………………….47,632 47,632 MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 016 REPLEN SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ………………………………………………………………..97,481 97,481 SPECIAL PROGRAMS 018 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………188,539 188,539 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 019 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………895,183 895,183 TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE………………………………….5,565 2,669,454 5,565 2,669,454 SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 001 ADVANCED EHF ………………………………………………………………………………………29,829 29,829 002 AF SATELLITE COMM SYSTEM …………………………………………………………………..35,400 35,400 003 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………………..1,121 1,121 004 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ………………………………………….27,867 27,867 005 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) …………………………………………………61,606 61,606 006 GENERAL INFORMATION TECH—SPACE ……………………………………………………..3,425 3,425 007 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ………………………………………………………………………….69,386 5,000 74,386 GPS backup technology demonstration ……………………………………………..[5,000 ] 008 GLOBAL POSTIONING (SPACE) …………………………………………………………………..2,181 2,181 009 INTEG BROADCAST SERV …………………………………………………………………………16,445 16,445 010 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ………………………………………………………………..31,895 31,895 012 MILSATCOM ……………………………………………………………………………………………11,265 11,265

360 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 013 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH CAPABILITY ………………………………………………709,981 709,981 014 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ……………………………………………..5 994,555 5 994,555 015 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) …………………………………………………………………………………138,397 138,397 017 NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………..7,705 7,705 018 ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM ……………………………………………………….47,609 47,609 019 SPACE FENCE …………………………………………………………………………………………51,361 51,361 020 SPACE MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………….148,065 148,065 021 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ……………………………………………………………117,637 117,637 SSPARES 022 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….21,812 21,812 TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE…………………………………….5 2,527,542 5,000 5 2,532,542 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 001 ROCKETS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….345,911 345,911 CARTRIDGES 002 CARTRIDGES …………………………………………………………………………………………..163,840 163,840 BOMBS 003 PRACTICE BOMBS …………………………………………………………………………………..20,876 20,876 004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ……………………………………………………………………..259,308 259,308 005 MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP) ………………………………………………….38,111 38,111 006 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ………………………………………………………………7,899 234,198 7,899 234,198 007 B61 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….250 109,292 250 109,292 008 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..52,731 52,731 OTHER ITEMS 009 CAD/PAD ………………………………………………………………………………………………..51,455 51,455

361 010 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) …………………………………………………….6,038 6,038 011 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….524 524 012 MODIFICATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………1,270 1,270013 ITEMS LESS THAN $5,000,000 ………………………………………………………………….4,604 4,604 FLARES 015 FLARES ………………………………………………………………………………………………….125,286 125,286 FUZES 016 FUZES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………109,358 109,358 SMALL ARMS 017 SMALL ARMS ………………………………………………………………………………………….64,502 –5,000 59,502 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–5,000 ] TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE………………………8,149 1,587,304 –5,000 8,149 1,582,304 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………..6,949 –3,500 3,449 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–3,500 ] CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ……………………………………………………………………..36,002 –18,000 18,002 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–18,000 ] 003 CAP VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………………………………..1,022 1,022 004 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………42,696 –21,000 21,696 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–21,000 ] SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 005 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ………………………………………………………………..30,145 30,145 006 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ………………………………………………………….1,230 1,230 007 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………………43,003 –21,000 22,003Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–21,000 ] FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 008 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ………………………………………………….23,328 23,328 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 009 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………11,537 11,537

362 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 010 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU ………………………………………………37,600 37,600 011 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES …………………………………………………..104,923 –52,000 52,923 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–52,000 ] COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 012 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………….114,372 114,372 INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 013 INTERNATIONAL INTEL TECH & ARCHITECTURES …………………………………………8,290 8,290 014 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………2,099 2,099 015 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………….37,415 37,415 ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 016 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS …………………………………………………….57,937 –43,550 14,387 D-RAPCON Cost Growth …………………………………………………………………..[–43,550 ] 018 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ……………………………………………………………3,012 3,012 019 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMEN …………………………………………………19,989 19,989 020 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST …………………………………………………………..45,020 45,020 021 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ……………………………………………………….32,836 32,836 022 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX ………………………………………………………………12,454 12,454 023 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………..14,263 14,263 025 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ………………………………..7,769 7,769 SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 026 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………….40,450 40,450 027 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS …………………………………………………….6,619 6,619 028 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ………………………………………………………….10,192 10,192 029 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM …………………………………………………..159,313 –15,900 143,413 Underexecution ……………………………………………………………………………….[–15,900 ]

363 030 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ……………………………………………………………………..132,675 132,675 031 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ………………………………………………140,875 140,875 032 WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE (WAS) …………………………………………………………….92,104 92,104 033 C3 COUNTERMEASURES …………………………………………………………………………..45,152 45,152 034 GCSS-AF FOS ………………………………………………………………………………………….483 483 035 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING & MGT SYS ………………………………………..802 802 036 MAINTENANCE REPAIR & OVERHAUL INITIATIVE ………………………………………….12,207 12,207 037 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………7,644 7,644 038 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) …………………………………………………40,066 40,066 AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 041 BASE INFORMATION TRANSPT INFRAST (BITI) WIRED …………………………………..22,357 22,357 042 AFNET ……………………………………………………………………………………………………102,836 102,836 043 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) …………………………………..3,145 3,145 044 USCENTCOM …………………………………………………………………………………………..13,194 13,194 ORGANIZATION AND BASE 045 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………….161,231 161,231 047 RADIO EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….12,142 12,142 048 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………..6,505 6,505 049 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE …………………………………………………………………169,404 169,404 MODIFICATIONS 050 COMM ELECT MODS ………………………………………………………………………………..10,654 10,654 PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 051 PERSONAL SAFETY AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT …………………………………………….51,906 51,906 DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 052 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ………………………………………………….88,298 –7,500 80,798 Program reduction ………………………………………………………………………….[–7,500 ] BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 053 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………..17,031 5,000 22,031 Civil Engineers Construction, Surveying, and Mapping Equipment ………[5,000 ] 054 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………….82,635 82,635 055 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………..9,549 –3,000 6,549 Program reduction ………………………………………………………………………….[–3,000 ]

364 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 056 BASE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………24,005 –7,000 17,005 Program reduction ………………………………………………………………………….[–7,000 ] SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 058 DARP RC135 ………………………………………………………………………………………….26,262 26,262 059 DCGS-AF ………………………………………………………………………………………………..448,290 –47,800 400,490 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………[–35,000 ] Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–12,800 ] 061 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………..913,813 913,813 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 062 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………17,258,069 17,258,069 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 063 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS …………………………………………………………………….86,365 86,365 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE…………………………………….20,890,164 –235,250 20,654,914 PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 043 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ………………………………………………………………………….35,295 35,295 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 042 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) …………………………………..5,403 5,403 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 046 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS …………………………………………………………………………497 497 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 007 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ……………………………………………………………21,590 21,590 008 TELEPORT PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………………….33,905 33,905 009 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….27,886 27,886 010 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) …………………………………………….1,017 1,017

365 011 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK ………………………………………………..150,674 150,674 013 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY …………………………………………………..94,610 94,610 014 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE …………………………………………………………….197,246 197,246 015 JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY STACKS (JRSS) ………………………………………………..140,338 140,338 016 JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER ………………………………………………………………………..107,182 107,182 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 018 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….5,225 5,225 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 021 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….1,196 1,196 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 001 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION ………………………………………………………………….2,542 2,542 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 044 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS …………………………………………………………………………..4,360 4,360 045 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS—CE2T2 ………………………………………………………………904 904 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 026 THAAD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………82 874,068 82 874,068 027 GROUND BASED MIDCOURSE ……………………………………………………………………14 409,000 14 409,000 028 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..115,000 115,000 029 AEGIS BMD …………………………………………………………………………………………….43 593,488 43 593,488 030 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY) ……………………………………………………………..115,206 115,206 031 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ………………………………………………………………………..13,185 13,185 032 ISRAELI PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………………………80,000 80,000 033 SHORT RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (SRBMD) ………………………………..50,000 50,000 034 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III …………………………………………………………………………15,000 15,000 035 IRON DOME ……………………………………………………………………………………………70,000 70,000 036 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ……………………………………………………28 97,057 28 97,057 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 003 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION …………………………………………………………………..10,630 10,630 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 023 VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….207 207 024 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………….5,592 5,592 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA

366 SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 020 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS …………………………………….1,723 1,723 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….3,873 3,873 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 019 MAJOR EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………….13,106 13,106 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 046A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………589,691 589,691 AVIATION PROGRAMS 050 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT …………………………………………….148,351 148,351 051 UNMANNED ISR ………………………………………………………………………………………57,708 57,708 052 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ………………………………………………………………………..18,731 18,731 053 U–28 …………………………………………………………………………………………………….32,301 32,301 054 MH–47 CHINOOK …………………………………………………………………………………….131,033 131,033 055 CV–22 MODIFICATION ……………………………………………………………………………..32,529 32,529 056 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE …………………………………………………………..24,621 24,621 057 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE ……………………………………………………………………226,965 226,965 058 AC/MC–130J …………………………………………………………………………………………..165,813 165,813 059 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………80,274 80,274 SHIPBUILDING 060 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………..136,723 136,723 AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 061 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M …………………………………………………………………………357,742 357,742 OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 062 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………..85,699 85,699 063 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ………………………………….17,863 17,863 064 OTHER ITEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………………….112,117 112,117

367 065 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………..7,313 7,313 066 SPECIAL PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………..14,026 14,026 067 TACTICAL VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………………………..88,608 88,608 068 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………….438,590 –5,200 433,390 Link 16 handheld radios for USSOCOM …………………………………………….[12,800 ] SAT Deployable Node ………………………………………………………………………[–18,000 ] 069 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS …………………………………………………………….19,408 19,408 070 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES …………………………………………………6,281 6,281 071 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ……………………………………………18,509 18,509 073 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS …………………………………………………………………367,433 367,433 CBDP 074 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ………………………………………166,418 –12,800 153,618 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–12,800 ] 075 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION ……………………………………………………144,519 144,519 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE…………………………………………167 6,786,271 –18,000 167 6,768,271 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 001 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ………………………………………………..100,025 –100,025 0 Program decrease …………………………………………………………………………..[–100,025 ] TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND…………………………100,025 –100,025 0 TOTAL PROCUREMENT…………………………………………………………………30,077 130,526,043 22,177 3,061,849 52,254 133,587,892

368 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 003 MQ–1 UAV ………………………………………………………………………………………….6 60,000 6 60,000 ROTARY 011 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) …………………………………………………….1 21,246 1 21,246 014 CH–47 HELICOPTER …………………………………………………………………………….2 25,000 2 25,000 MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 017 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ………………………………………………………………………….11,400 11,400 019 GRAY EAGLE MODS2 ……………………………………………………………………………32,000 32,000 020 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) …………………………………………………………51,000 51,000 032 RQ–7 UAV MODS …………………………………………………………………………………50,868 –50,868 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–50,868 ] 033 UAS MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………….3,402 –3,402 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–3,402 ] GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 036 CMWS ………………………………………………………………………………………………..84,387 84,387 037 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ………………………………….24,060 24,060 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY……………………………………9 363,363 –54,270 9 309,093 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 002 MSE MISSILE ………………………………………………………………………………………61 260,000 –260,000 61 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–260,000 ] AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM

369 005 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………………..2,684 255,040 2,684 255,040 ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 008 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY …………………………………………………..75 31,120 –13,800 75 17,320 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–13,800 ] 011 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ……………………………………………………………7,584 624,500 7,584 624,500 013 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM (HIMARS ……………………………..24 171,138 –171,138 24 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–171,138 ] 014 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE SYSTEM (LMAMS ……………………………..1,318 112,973 1,318 112,973 MODIFICATIONS 016 ATACMS MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………225,580 –80,000 145,580 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–80,000 ] 021 MLRS MODS ……………………………………………………………………………………….122,000 –122,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–122,000 ] TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY………………………………………11,746 1,802,351 –646,938 11,746 1,155,413 PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 001 BRADLEY PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………….61 205,000 –205,000 61 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–205,000 ] 002 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ………………………………………….66 230,359 –230,359 66 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–230,359 ] MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 006 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) …………………………………………………………………..50,000 –50,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–50,000 ] 008 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) …………………………………………….6 67,000 –67,000 6 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–67,000 ] 009 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ……………………………….12 42,354 –42,354 12 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–42,354 ] 014 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ……………………………………………………………………..34,000 –34,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–34,000 ] 015 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………….40 455,000 –455,000 40 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–455,000 ]

370 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 018 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) ………………………………………………..126 –126 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–126 ] 022 MORTAR SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………….11,842 –180 11,662Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–180 ] 025 CARBINE …………………………………………………………………………………………….1,800 –1,800 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–1,800 ] 027 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ………………………………..3,378 –3,378 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–3,378 ] MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 032 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ………………………………………………………….4,920 –4,920 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–4,920 ] 034 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ……………………………………………………..7 –7 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–7 ] SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 039 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) …………………………………………………1,397 –1,397 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–1,397 ] TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY…………………………………..185 1,107,183 –1,095,521 185 11,662 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………….3,392 –3,392 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–3,392 ] 002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………….40 –40 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–40 ] 003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………….17 –17 0

371 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–17 ] 004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………….189 –189 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–189 ] 005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………….1,605 1,605 007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………………….25,000 –25,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–25,000 ] MORTAR AMMUNITION 009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………….218 –218 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–218 ] 010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ………………………………………………………………….484 –484 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–484 ] ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES …………………………………………..79,400 –79,400 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–79,400 ] 015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 …………………………………………………..973 72,985 –51,700 973 21,285 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–51,700 ] 016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ……………………………..63,900 –48,900 15,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–48,900 ] ROCKETS 018 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ……………………………………….22,242 –2,242 20,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–2,242 ] 019 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………………39,974 39,974 OTHER AMMUNITION 021 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ……………………………………………………..5 –5 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–5 ] 022 GRENADES, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………………8 –8 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–8 ] MISCELLANEOUS 027 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) ………………………………………………….66 –66 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–66 ] TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY…………………………..973 309,525 –211,661 973 97,864

372 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 002 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: ……………………………………………………………………..8,000 –8,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–8,000 ] 003 AMBULANCE, 4 LITTER, 5/4 TON, 4X4 ……………………………………………………20,770 –20,770 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–20,770 ] 010 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ………………………………………..596 115,400 –115,400 596 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–115,400 ] 012 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ……………………………….6,682 –6,682 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–6,682 ] 013 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ……………………………………..50,000 –50,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–50,000 ] 014 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP …………………………………………………………..186,377 –377 186,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–377 ] COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 028 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ………………………..7,100 7,100 COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 037 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM …………………………………………………………….1,560 –1,560 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–1,560 ] 042 TRACTOR RIDE ……………………………………………………………………………………13,190 13,190 045 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM …………………………..9,549 9,549 047 COTS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………….22,000 –22,000 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–22,000 ] COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 050 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE (MIP) ……………………………………………………9,800 9,800

373 055 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) ………………………………………………..3 –3 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–3 ] COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 059 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ………………………………………………………..690 690 COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 060 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………….8,750 8,750 063 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM …………………………….60,337 –9,050 51,287 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–9,050 ] ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 068 DCGS-A (MIP) ……………………………………………………………………………………..37,806 37,806070 TROJAN (MIP) ……………………………………………………………………………………..6,926 –600 6,326 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–600 ] 071 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ………………………………………………2,011 2,011 075 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION DEVICES (MIP) ………………………………….5,370 5,370 ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 080 CREW …………………………………………………………………………………………………42,651 42,651 081 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAP. (MIP) …………………………………20,050 5,400 25,450 SOUTHCOM UFR: CENTAM Maritime Sensor ……………………………………[3,600 ] SOUTHCOM UFR: SIGINT Suite COMSAT RF …………………………………….[1,800 ] 082 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES …………………………..12,974 12,974 ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 085 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ………………………………………………………………………..463 –86 377 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–86 ] 086 LONG RANGE ADVANCED SCOUT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM …………………………2,861 –2,861 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–2,861 ] 087 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF ……………………………………60 60 088 RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………11 –11 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–11 ] 090 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS …………………………………..251,062 –262 250,800 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–262 ] 091 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ………………………………………………………..525 –525 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–525 ]

374 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 094 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ……………………………………….26,146 –26,146 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–26,146 ] 096 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) ………………………………………………………………4,050 –4,050 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–4,050 ] 097 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 …………………………………………………..960 960 098 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM …………………………………………………………..7,660 7,660 099 COUNTERFIRE RADARS …………………………………………………………………………165,200 165,200 ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 112 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP …………………………………………………..28,475 28,475 CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 121 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………………….27 –27 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–27 ] 122 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) …………………………………………..20,200 20,200 123 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ……………………………………………………………39,200 39,200 124 CBRN DEFENSE …………………………………………………………………………………..2,317 –317 2,000Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–317 ] ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 129 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ………………………………..16,000 16,000 130 AREA MINE DETECTION SYSTEM (AMDS) ………………………………………………..1 –1 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–1 ] 132 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ………………………………………….4,850 4,850 136 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………….1 –1 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–1 ] COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 139 HEATERS AND ECU’S ……………………………………………………………………………270 270 141 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) ………………………………….4,300 4,300

375 142 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM …………………………………………………………………..1,725 1,725 144 FORCE PROVIDER ………………………………………………………………………………..55,800 55,800 145 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………….1,035 1,035 146 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM …………………………1,980 1,980 MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 151 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL …………………………………………………………………17,527 17,527 MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) …………………………………………………….268 –268 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–268 ] CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 159 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ………………………………………25,700 25,700 GENERATORS 165 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP …………………………………………………..569 569 TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 174 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) …………………………………….9,495 –9,495 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–9,495 ] OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 176 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR ………………………………………………………………..33 –33 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ………………………[–33 ] 177 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………..18,000 18,000 178 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) …………………………………………………..6,000 6,000 179 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………..2,080 2,080 180 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ………………………………………19,200 19,200 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY…………………………………………596 1,382,047 –273,125 596 1,108,922 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER AIRCRAFT 025 STUASL0 UAV ……………………………………………………………………………………..35,065 35,065 MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 032 SH–60 SERIES …………………………………………………………………………………….4,858 4,858 034 EP–3 SERIES ………………………………………………………………………………………5,380 5,380 044 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT …………………………………………………………………2,165 2,165

376 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 049 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………..9,820 9,820 051 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM ………………………………………………….3,206 3,206 061 QRC …………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,410 2,410 063 RQ–21 SERIES ……………………………………………………………………………………17,215 17,215 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY…………………………………….80,119 80,119 WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 004 AMRAAM …………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1,183 1 1,183 005 SIDEWINDER ……………………………………………………………………………………….1 381 1 381 012 HELLFIRE ……………………………………………………………………………………………23 1,530 23 1,530 015 AERIAL TARGETS …………………………………………………………………………………6,500 6,500 GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 035 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS ………………………………………………………………..1,540 1,540 MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 038 GUN MOUNT MODS ………………………………………………………………………………3,000 3,000 TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY…………………………………….25 14,134 25 14,134 PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ………………………………………………………………….62,530 62,530 002 JDAM ………………………………………………………………………………………………….3,906 93,019 3,906 93,019 003 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………..2,163 2,163 004 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION …………………………………………………………………5,000 5,000 006 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ……………………………………………..5,334 5,334 007 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES …………………………………………………..36,580 36,580

377 008 JATOS …………………………………………………………………………………………………747 747011 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ……………………………………………………………..2,538 2,538 013 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ……………………………………………………………1,807 1,807 015 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION …………………………………………………….2,229 2,229 MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 019 MORTARS ……………………………………………………………………………………………2,018 2,018021 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ……………………………………………………………….632 632 022 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION …………………………………………………………779 779 026 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ………………………………………………………………164 164 029 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS …………………………………………………………………………31,001 31,001 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC……………………………3,906 246,541 3,906 246,541 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 021 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………..9,200 9,200 SMALL BOATS 028 STANDARD BOATS ……………………………………………………………………………….19,060 19,060 ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 043 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………56,950 56,950 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 077 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS …………………………………………………3,200 3,200 CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 082 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP ………………………………………………..2,000 2,000 SONOBUOYS 088 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES …………………………………………………………………….21,156 21,156 OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 104 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP ………………………………………………..33,580 33,580 CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 108 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ………………………………………………………….170 170 109 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS …………………………………………………………………400 400 111 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………..770 770 112 TACTICAL VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………………….7,298 7,298

378 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 118 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ……………………………………………………500 500 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 123 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………….6,500 6,500 128 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………….2,200 2,200 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………..19,389 19,389 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 133A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………..4,800 4,800 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY…………………………………………187,173 187,173 PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 022 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………………..5,583 5,583 TACTICAL VEHICLES 037 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ………………………………………………………44,440 44,440 ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 045 EOD SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………….8,000 8,000 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS……………………………………..58,023 58,023 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE OTHER AIRLIFT 007 HC–130J …………………………………………………………………………………………….1 100,000 1 100,000 OTHER AIRCRAFT 018 MQ–9 …………………………………………………………………………………………………21 339,740 –9 –192,700 12 147,040 Excess attrition aircraft ……………………………………………………………….[–9] [–192,700 ] 019 RQ–20B PUMA ……………………………………………………………………………………13,500 13,500

379 STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 021 B–1B …………………………………………………………………………………………………4,000 4,000 023 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES ……………………………………149,778 149,778 TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 024 A–10 ………………………………………………………………………………………………….10,350 10,350 OTHER AIRCRAFT 047 U–2 MODS ………………………………………………………………………………………….7,900 7,900 056 COMPASS CALL MODS ………………………………………………………………………….36,400 36,400 061 E–8 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………13,000 13,000 065 H–60 …………………………………………………………………………………………………40,560 40,560 067 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS …………………………………………………………………87,900 87,900 068 OTHER AIRCRAFT …………………………………………………………………………………53,731 53,731 070 MQ–9 UAS PAYLOADS ………………………………………………………………………….16,000 16,000 AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 072 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ……………………………………………………………..91,500 91,500 COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 073 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ……………………………………………..32,529 32,529 074 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ……………………………………………………………..22,000 22,000 TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE…………………………….22 1,018,888 –9 –192,700 13 826,188 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 002 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE …………………………………………………48 61,600 48 61,600 005 AMRAAM …………………………………………………………………………………………….2 2,600 2 2,600 006 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ……………………………………………………………….3,000 255,000 3,000 255,000 007 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ………………………………………………………………………3,909 140,724 3,909 140,724 CLASS IV 013 AGM–65D MAVERICK ……………………………………………………………………………33,602 33,602 TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE………………………………6,959 493,526 6,959 493,526 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

380 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 002 CARTRIDGES ……………………………………………………………………………………….29,587 29,587BOMBS 004 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ………………………………………………………………….551,862 551,862 006 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION …………………………………………………………..28,101 738,451 28,101 738,451 FLARES 015 FLARES ………………………………………………………………………………………………12,116 12,116 FUZES 016 FUZES ………………………………………………………………………………………………..81,000 81,000 SMALL ARMS 017 SMALL ARMS ………………………………………………………………………………………8,500 8,500 TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE…………………..28,101 1,421,516 28,101 1,421,516 OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ………………………………………………………….9,680 9,680 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ………………………………………………………………….9,680 9,680 004 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………..19,680 19,680 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 006 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ………………………………………………………24,880 24,880 007 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………..34,680 34,680 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 008 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ………………………………………………9,736 9,736 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 009 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES …………………………………………………………..24,680 24,680 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT

381 010 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV AND CLEANING EQU …………………………………………..9,680 9,680 011 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ……………………………………………….9,680 9,680 INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 015 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………6,156 6,156 ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 016 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS …………………………………………………56,884 56,884 SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 029 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ……………………………………………….46,236 46,236 037 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ………………………………………………………..2,500 2,500 ORGANIZATION AND BASE 045 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………………27,911 27,911 PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 051 PERSONAL SAFETY AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT …………………………………………13,600 13,600 BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 053 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ……………………………………………………………….28,800 28,800 054 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………53,500 53,500 055 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………….78,562 78,562 056 BASE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ……………………………………..28,055 28,055 SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 059 DCGS-AF …………………………………………………………………………………………….2,000 2,000 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 062 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………..3,229,364 3,229,364 TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE…………………………………3,725,944 3,725,944 PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 008 TELEPORT PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………………3,800 3,800 017 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK …………………………………………..12,000 12,000 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 025 COUNTER IED & IMPROVISED THREAT TECHNOLOGIES …………………………….5,534 5,534 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 046A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………..41,559 41,559

382 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost AVIATION PROGRAMS 047 MANNED ISR ……………………………………………………………………………………….5,000 5,000 048 MC–12 ……………………………………………………………………………………………….5,000 5,000 049 MH–60 BLACKHAWK …………………………………………………………………………….27,600 27,600 051 UNMANNED ISR …………………………………………………………………………………..17,000 17,000 052 NON-STANDARD AVIATION …………………………………………………………………….13,000 13,000 053 U–28 …………………………………………………………………………………………………51,722 51,722 054 MH–47 CHINOOK …………………………………………………………………………………36,500 36,500 AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 061 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………..100,850 100,850 OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 062 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………….16,500 16,500 064 OTHER ITEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………………7,700 7,700 067 TACTICAL VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………………….59,891 59,891 068 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………21,135 21,135 069 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS …………………………………………………………10,000 10,000 071 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ………………………………………..10,805 10,805 073 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ……………………………………………………………..13 126,539 13 126,539 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE……………………………………..13 572,135 13 572,135 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT UNDISTRIBUTED 007 UNDISTRIBUTED …………………………………………………………………………………..150,000 150,000Program increase ………………………………………………………………………..[150,000 ] TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT…………………..150,000 150,00

382 SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost AVIATION PROGRAMS 047 MANNED ISR ……………………………………………………………………………………….5,000 5,000 048 MC–12 ……………………………………………………………………………………………….5,000 5,000 049 MH–60 BLACKHAWK …………………………………………………………………………….27,600 27,600 051 UNMANNED ISR …………………………………………………………………………………..17,000 17,000 052 NON-STANDARD AVIATION …………………………………………………………………….13,000 13,000 053 U–28 …………………………………………………………………………………………………51,722 51,722 054 MH–47 CHINOOK …………………………………………………………………………………36,500 36,500 AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 061 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………..100,850 100,850 OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 062 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………….16,500 16,500 064 OTHER ITEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………………7,700 7,700 067 TACTICAL VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………………….59,891 59,891 068 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ……………………………………………………………………21,135 21,135 069 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS …………………………………………………………10,000 10,000 071 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ………………………………………..10,805 10,805 073 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ……………………………………………………………..13 126,539 13 126,539 TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE……………………………………..13 572,135 13 572,135 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT UNDISTRIBUTED 007 UNDISTRIBUTED …………………………………………………………………………………..150,000 150,000Program increase ………………………………………………………………………..[150,000 ] TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT…………………..150,000 150,00

384 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 House Change House Authorized RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………11,585 11,585 002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………276,912 276,912 003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………………65,283 65,283 004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS ………………………………………………………………………….92,115 92,115 SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH……………………………………………………………………………………………………445,895 445,895 APPLIED RESEARCH 005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28,600 1,000 29,600 Conformal batteries and composite armor ……………………………………………………………………………[1,000 ] 006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY …………………………………………………………………………………..32,366 4,000 36,366 Expand Army Research lab Open Campus project …………………………………………………………………[4,000 ]007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,674 8,674 008 0602126A TRACTOR JACK …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..400 400 009 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….64,847 64,847 010 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………25,571 25,571 011 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50,183 50,183 012 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………29,502 29,502

385 013 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ……………………………………………………………………………………….28,500 28,500 014 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………70,450 70,450 015 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….75,541 75,541 016 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………..5,032 5,032 017 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………………………..12,394 12,394 018 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………40,444 10,000 50,444 Accelerate Army railgun development and prototyping …………………………………………………………..[10,000 ] 019 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ……………………………………………………………………………………..58,283 58,283 020 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………29,582 29,582 021 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..21,244 21,244 022 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………….24,131 24,131 023 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………….13,242 13,242 024 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………….55,003 55,003 025 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………….14,958 14,958 026 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………..78,159 78,159 027 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………21,862 21,862 028 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….40,566 5,000 45,566 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[5,000 ] 029 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….90,075 90,075 SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH………………………………………………………………………………………………..919,609 20,000 939,609 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 030 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………….39,338 39,338 031 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………….62,496 62,496 032 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………….124,958 124,958 033 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………..102,686 102,686 034 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………..119,739 119,739 035 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………….13,000 13,000 036 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………..8,044 8,044 037 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22,631 22,631 038 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………..25,682 25,682 040 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………3,762 3,762

386 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 041 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4,896 4,896 042 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6,041 6,041 043 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………31,491 31,491 044 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………….61,132 10,000 71,132 Shoot-on-the-Move Technology Development for SHORAD platforms ………………………………………..[10,000 ] 045 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16,845 16,845 046 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM …………………………………………………………183,322 5,000 188,322 Enhance and accelerate Army artificial intelligence and machine learning ……………………………..[5,000 ] 047 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………11,104 11,104 048 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………………………..5,885 5,885 049 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………..61,376 –2,500 58,876 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–2,500 ] 050 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS …………………………………………………………….9,136 9,136 051 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………….25,864 25,864 052 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………34,883 5,000 39,883 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[5,000 ] 053 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..52,387 –2,500 49,887 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–2,500 ] SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………..1,026,698 15,000 1,041,698 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 054 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION …………………………………………………………………………….10,777 10,777 056 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ……………………………………………………………………….42,802 1,000 43,802 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………..[1,000 ]057 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV ……………………………………………………………………………..45,254 45,254 058 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV …………………………………………………………..22,700 22,700 059 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ……………………………………………………………………………………41,974 14,000 55,974

387 Army UFR: test and evaluation of the M999 155mm Anti-Personnel Improved Conventional Mu-nition.[14,000 ] 060 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM MODERNIZATION—ADV DEV …………………………………………………………………………….119,395 119,395 061 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY …………………………………………………………………………………………8,746 8,746 062 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV …………………………………………………………….35,667 35,667 063 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………..7,350 7,350 064 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ……………………………………………………………………….14,749 14,749 065 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………3,687 3,687 066 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10,793 10,793 067 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV …………………………………………………………………………14,248 14,248 068 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV …………………………………………………………………………………………………….34,284 34,284 069 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………….18,044 10,000 28,044 Advanced materials research for personal protective equipment (PPE) ……………………………………[10,000 ] 070 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………95,660 95,660 071 0604020A CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM (CFT) ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING ……………………………………38,000 30,000 68,000 Iron Dome short range air defense experimentation ………………………………………………………………[30,000 ] 072 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9,765 9,765 073 0604113A FUTURE TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (FTUAS) ……………………………………………………………..12,393 12,393 074 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR …………………………………………………………………….120,374 120,374 075 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES …………………………………………………………………………………………95,347 95,347 076 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) …………………………………………………………………95,085 23,000 118,085 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………..[23,000 ] 077 0604118A TRACTOR BEAM ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52,894 52,894 079 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT & PROTOTYPING …………………………………………………77,939 77,939 080 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ……………………………………..51,030 51,030 081 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………..65,817 65,817 082 1206120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ………………………………………………………………….146,300 146,300 083 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………38,319 38,319 SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES…………………………………………….1,329,393 78,000 1,407,393 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 084 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32,293 32,293

388 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 085 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………….78,699 78,699 088 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17,050 17,050 089 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..83,155 83,155 090 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….3,704 3,704 091 0604611A JAVELIN ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10,623 10,623 092 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………………………………11,950 11,950 093 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12,347 12,347 095 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………8,212 8,212 096 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION (ASM)—ENG DEV …………………………………………………………………393,613 393,613 097 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ………………………………………………………………………………………………139,614 139,614 098 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT …………………………………………………………………………….4,507 4,507 099 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 49,288 107 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ………………………………………………………………………………………….183,100 183,100 108 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ………………………………………………………………………..79,706 –3,800 75,906 Late MSV-L contract award and concurrency ………………………………………………………………………..[–3,800 ] 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

389 114 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 –13,400 55,804 Program reduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–13,400 ] 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 41,928 135 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 ……………………………………………………………..157,710 157,710 138 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….86,167 86,167 139 0605054A EMERGING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………42,866 25,400 68,266 Army UFR: program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………….[25,400 ] 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

390 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 8,200 3,200,889 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 82,996 155 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 …………………………………………………………………………………………….305,759 305,759 160 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 9,767 164 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

391 173 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 1,322,481 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 2,400 197 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………..65,369 25,000 90,369 Increase PATRIOT improvement efforts …………………………………………………………………………………[25,000 ] 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 2,000 3,643

392 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………..[2,000 ]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 249212 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 14,000 26,416 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………..[14,000 ] 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 4,310 233 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 235A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5,955 5,955 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………….1,922,614 41,000 1,963,614 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY……………………………………………………..10,159,379 162,200 10,321,579

393 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………………119,433 10,000 129,433 Defense University Research Instrumentation Program …………………………………………………………..[10,000 ] 002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………19,237 19,237 003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………458,708 458,708 SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH……………………………………………………………………………………………………597,378 10,000 607,378 APPLIED RESEARCH 004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………14,643 14,643 005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………124,049 124,049 006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………..59,607 59,607 007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………..36,348 5,000 41,348 Enhance and accelerate Navy artificial intelligence research …………………………………………………[5,000 ] 008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ……………………………………………………………………………56,197 56,197 009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………83,800 83,800 010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ……………………………………………………………….42,998 42,998 011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………6,349 6,349 012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………………….58,049 20,000 78,049 Academic partnerships for undersea unmanned warfare research and energy technology …………[20,000 ] 013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………147,771 147,771 014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………37,545 23,500 61,045 Program increase-one sensor plus integration ………………………………………………………………………[23,500 ] 015 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED RESEARCH …………………………………………………………….159,697 10,000 169,697 Accelerate Navy railgun development and prototyping …………………………………………………………..[10,000 ] 016 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT—ONR FIELD ACITIVITIES ……………………………………………….64,418 64,418 SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH………………………………………………………………………………………………..891,471 58,500 949,971 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 019 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………….2,423 2,423 021 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) …………………………………………………………………150,245 150,245

394 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 022 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………….13,313 13,313 023 0603671N NAVY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT (ATD) ……………………………………………………………………..131,502 131,502 024 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………….232,996 232,996 025 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………….58,657 58,657 030 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ……………………………….161,859 20,000 181,859 Accelerate Navy railgun development and prototyping …………………………………………………………..[20,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………..750,995 20,000 770,995 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 031 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………..29,747 29,747 032 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7,050 7,050 033 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….793 793 034 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………7,058 5,000 12,058 Prototyping fiber deployment sonobuoy systems ……………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] 035 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………..3,540 3,540 036 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………….59,741 59,741 037 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES ……………………………………………………………62,727 62,727 038 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ……………………………………………………………………………………………….8,570 10,000 18,570 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] 039 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….5,440 5,440 040 0603525N PILOT FISH …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………162,222 162,222 041 0603527N RETRACT LARCH …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,745 11,745 042 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………114,265 114,265 043 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..740 740 044 0603553N SURFACE ASW ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,122 1,122 045 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………….109,086 –20,000 89,086 Excessive cost growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–7,000 ]

395 Prior year inefficiencies impact …………………………………………………………………………………………..[–13,000 ] 046 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………9,374 9,374 047 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ……………………………………………………………………………………………….89,419 89,419 048 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ……………………………………………………………………….13,348 13,348 049 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………256,137 256,137 050 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………..22,109 22,109 051 0603576N CHALK EAGLE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….29,744 29,744 052 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..27,997 27,997 053 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………16,351 16,351 054 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………514,846 12,000 526,846 Advanced Submarines Control and Precision Propulsion Module Integration …………………………….[12,000 ] 055 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………103,633 103,633 056 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………7,931 7,931 057 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………134,772 134,772 058 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9,307 9,307 060 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………..1,828 1,828 061 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………43,148 43,148 062 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………..5,915 5,915 063 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..19,811 5,000 24,811 High-Pressure Waterjet Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology development …………………………[5,000 ] 064 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25,656 25,656 065 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………5,301 5,301 066 0603734N CHALK CORAL …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….267,985 267,985 067 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,059 4,059 068 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………377,878 377,878 069 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….381,770 381,770 070 0603751N RETRACT ELM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60,535 60,535 073 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………9,652 9,652 074 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………15,529 15,529 075 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ………………………………………………………………………………………….27,581 5,000 32,581 Joint service adoption of non-lethal weapon technologies ………………………………………………………[5,000 ]076 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ……………………………………………………101,566 101,566

396 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 077 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………223,344 –52,000 171,344 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–52,000 ] 078 0604014N F/A –18 INFRARED SEARCH AND TRACK (IRST) ……………………………………………………………………………..108,700 108,700 079 0604027N DIGITAL WARFARE OFFICE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………26,691 26,691 080 0604028N SMALL AND MEDIUM UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………….16,717 16,717 081 0604029N UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE CORE TECHNOLOGIES …………………………………………………………………..30,187 30,187 082 0604030N RAPID PROTOTYPING, EXPERIMENTATION AND DEMONSTRATION. ……………………………………………………..48,796 48,796 083 0604031N LARGE UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLES ………………………………………………………………………………………92,613 –21,200 71,413 Excessive Snakehead LDUUV growth …………………………………………………………………………………….[–21,200 ] 084 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) …………………………………………….58,121 15,000 73,121 EMALS software support activity ………………………………………………………………………………………….[15,000 ] 086 0604126N LITTORAL AIRBORNE MCM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..17,622 17,622 087 0604127N SURFACE MINE COUNTERMEASURES …………………………………………………………………………………………….18,154 18,154 088 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ……………………………………………47,278 47,278 090 0604289M NEXT GENERATION LOGISTICS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,081 11,081 092 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE ………………………………………………………………………………..7,107 7,107 093 0604454N LX (R) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5,549 5,549 094 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA PROTOTYPING ……………………………………………………………………………………………87,669 87,669 095 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………….132,818 132,818 096 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ……………………………7,230 7,230 097 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………143,062 143,062 099 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP …………………………………………………………………………………………….8,889 8,889 100 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………..25,291 –14,950 10,341 Unjustified cost growth ………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–14,950 ] 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 –56,150 4,237,563

397 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 103 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….12,798 1,000 13,798 TH–57 follow-on training system development ……………………………………………………………………..[1,000 ] 104 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..32,128 32,128 105 0604214M AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….46,363 46,363 107 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 –8,000 215,565 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–10,000 ] Program increase–IFF range improvement ……………………………………………………………………………[2,000 ] 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 20,980 119 0604269N EA–18 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….147,419 147,419 120 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………….89,824 31,600 121,424 Navy UFR: EA–18G offensive airborne electronic attack special mission pods …………………………[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 –20,000 377,403 ACB 20 unexecutable growth ………………………………………………………………………………………………[–20,000 ] 127 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION …………………………………………………………………………………………939 939 128 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) …………………………………………………………………………………………………….104,448 104,448 129 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………..165,881 15,000 180,881 XFU electronics unit integration …………………………………………………………………………………………..[15,000

398 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 130 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10,831 10,831 131 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING …………………………………….33,429 –6,900 26,529 Excess overhead …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–6,900 ] 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 –21,400 126,833 Excess cost growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–21,400 ] 140 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………………………..60,824 60,824 141 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ………………………………………………………………………………………60,062 60,062 142 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ……………………………………………………………………………………….4,642 4,642 144 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25,756 25,756 145 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

399 156 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ………………………………………………………………………………………………65,494 65,494 159 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………..14,005 14,005 160 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………..268,567 268,567 161 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 –116,900 602,042 Insufficient Air Vehicle budget justification ………………………………………………………………………….[–116,900 ] 169 0605450M JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) …………………………………………………………………………………………6,759 5,000 11,759 JAGM-F for USN and USMC …………………………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] 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 –120,600 5,921,880 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 6,000 83,014 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[6,000 ] 186 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION …………………………………………………………….48 48 187 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

400 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 192 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………….87,565 87,565 193 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 6,000 1,026,569 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 –11,200 119,315 Excess cost growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–11,200 ] 214 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ……………………………………………………………………………….3,127 3,127 215 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………….157,679 9,000 166,679 Project 2228, technical applications, systems engineering modeling and simulation capability and tool development.[9,000 ]

401 216 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………………………43,198 –4,000 39,198 Excess program growth ………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–4,000 ] 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 7,500 200,586 Engine noise reduction engineering ……………………………………………………………………………………..[2,500 ] JAGM-F for USN and USMC …………………………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] 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) ……………………………………………………282,395 282,395 223 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………………………………36,959 36,959 224 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 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….120,762 120,762 231 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………104,696 104,696 232 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ………………………………………………………………………………28,421 28,421 233 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………94,155 –25,600 68,555 Excessive TI–1 cost growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………[–25,600 ] 234 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………121,805 15,000 136,805 Navy UFR: F/A–18E/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 22,637 242 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40,121 40,121

402 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 243 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) ……………………………………………………………32,473 32,473 249 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) …………………………………………………23,697 23,697 250 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 –3,000 216,894 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–3,000 ] 265 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………….7,097 7,097 266 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 268A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,549,503 1,549,503 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………….4,885,060 –12,300 4,872,760 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY……………………………………………………..18,481,666 –94,550 18,387,116 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF

403 BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………348,322 348,322 002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………………154,991 154,991 003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………..14,506 14,506 SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH……………………………………………………………………………………………………517,819 517,819 APPLIED RESEARCH 004 0602102F MATERIALS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..125,373 19,000 144,373 Additional facility engineering research and development ……………………………………………………..[3,000 ] Structural Biology Techniques ……………………………………………………………………………………………..[3,000 ] Sub-atomic particle research ………………………………………………………………………………………………[3,000 ] Thermal protecting systems for hypersonics …………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES ……………………………………………………………………………………………130,547 10,000 140,547 Hypersonic vehicle structures ………………………………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH …………………………………………………………………………………112,518 112,518 007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….190,919 5,000 195,919 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[5,000 ] 008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………166,534 166,534 009 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT— MAJOR HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES …………………………….8,288 8,288 011 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….112,841 112,841 012 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………141,898 141,898 013 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ……………………………………………………………………….162,420 10,000 172,420 Enhance and accelerate Air Force artificial intelligence research ……………………………………………[10,000 ] 014 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………………….43,359 43,359 015 1206601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..117,645 117,645 SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,312,342 44,000 1,356,342 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 016 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………..34,426 10,000 44,426 Metals Affordability Initiative ………………………………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 017 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) …………………………………………………………………………..15,150 5,000 20,150 Air Force artificial intelligence research and non-operational support activities …………………….

404 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 018 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ………………………………………………………………………………………………..39,968 39,968 019 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO …………………………………………………………………………………………..121,002 121,002 020 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………..115,462 10,000 125,462 Laser power system enhancement ……………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] 021 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………..55,319 55,319 022 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………….54,895 54,895 023 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ………………………………………………………………………………..10,674 10,674 024 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………36,463 10,000 46,463 Autonomous life support system development ………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 025 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………..194,981 194,981 026 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………43,368 43,368 027 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………….42,025 5,000 47,025 Academic and industrial partnerships for aerospace materials ………………………………………………[5,000 ] 028 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ……………………………………………………51,064 13,300 64,364 Additional facility engineering research and development ……………………………………………………..[8,300 ] Enhance and accelerate Air Force artificial intelligence research ……………………………………………[5,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………..814,797 53,300 868,097 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 030 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………5,568 5,568 032 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………18,194 18,194 033 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………2,305 2,305 035 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ………………………………………………………………………..41,856 41,856 037 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE—BOMBER ………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,314,196 2,314,196 038 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………14,894 14,894 039 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SENSORS ……………………………………………………………………………………….34,585 34,585 040 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS CENTER (NAOC) RECAP …………………………………………………………………………9,740 9,740

405 041 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12,960 12,960 042 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM ………………………………………71,501 71,501 043 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS ……………………………………………………………………………..62,618 62,618 046 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE R&D …………………………………………………………………………..28,350 28,350 048 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,186,075 15,000 1,201,075 Competitively Awarded Transition Programs ………………………………………………………………………….[5,000 ] Non-engine development technology …………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] 049 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC DETERRENT ………………………………………………………………………………………345,041 69,400 414,441 Accelerated execution of program ………………………………………………………………………………………..[69,400 ] 050 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………..503,997 –90,000 413,997 Ahead of need ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–90,000 ] 051 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) …………………………………………………………………….40,326 40,326 052 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29,800 29,800 054 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA) ………………………………………………………………………….41,880 41,880 055 0305601F MISSION PARTNER ENVIRONMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………10,074 10,074 056 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………….253,825 253,825 057 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16,325 16,325 059 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ……………………………………………………………………….17,577 17,577 060 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) ………………………………………………286,629 286,629 061 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………7,940 7,940 062 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON …………………………………………………………………………………………………….138,052 10,000 148,052 Commercial weather data pilot ……………………………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 063 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………………………………39,338 39,338 064 1206434F MIDTERM POLAR MILSATCOM SYSTEM ………………………………………………………………………………………….383,113 383,113 065 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………….91,018 15,000 106,018 NTS–3 Payload …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[15,000 ] 066 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………………………45,542 4,000 49,542 Allied launch services …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[4,000 ] 067 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE (PTES) ………………………………………………………………………51,419 51,419 068 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL SERVICE (PTS) …………………………………………………………………………………………..29,776 29,776 069 1206855F PROTECTED SATCOM SERVICES (PSCS)—AGGREGATED ………………………………………………………………….29,379 29,379 070 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE …………………………………………………………………………………………….366,050 –119,000 247,050

406 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Space RCO Advanced Solar Power—early to need ………………………………………………………………..[–119,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES…………………………………………….6,529,943 –95,600 6,434,343 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 071 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………39,602 39,602 072 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………58,531 58,531 073 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,468 4,468 074 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………….1,909 1,909 075 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ……………………………………………………………………………………….207,746 207,746 076 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………….14,421 14,421 077 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ………………………………………………………………………………………….73,158 20,000 93,158 SDB II cost reduction initiatives ………………………………………………………………………………………….[20,000 ] 081 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK …………………………………………………………………………………………………..7,153 7,153 083 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………….58,590 58,590 084 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,990 2,990 085 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20,028 20,028 086 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………….15,787 15,787 087 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,919 8,919 088 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………35,895 27,000 62,895 Advanced threat radar system …………………………………………………………………………………………….[27,000 ] 089 0604800F F–35—EMD ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………69,001 69,001 091 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON …………………………………………………………………………………………………614,920 85,000 699,920 Accelerated execution of program ………………………………………………………………………………………..[85,000 ] 092 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..172,902 172,902 097 0605221F KC–46 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………88,170 88,170 098 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………265,465 265,465 099 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER …………………………………………………………………………………………………….457,652 457,652

407 105 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 1,015 115 0307581F JSTARS RECAP ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………623,000 623,000 JSTARS recap EMD execution ……………………………………………………………………………………………….[623,000 ] 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 ………………………………………………………………………………………134,463 134,463 124 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 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….643,126 643,126 130 1206853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ……………………………………………….245,447 245,447 SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION………………………………………………………………5,272,191 755,000 6,027,191 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 131 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………34,256 34,256 132 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….91,844 91,844 133 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 31,900 724,684

408 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Test range modernization ……………………………………………………………………………………………………[31,900 ] 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 …………………………..162,216 162,216 149 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 10,000 29,721 Rocket systems launch program ………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] 162 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….25,620 50,000 75,620 Blackjack project ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[50,000 ] SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT………………………………………………………………………………………….2,839,511 91,900 2,931,411 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

409 165 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING …………………………………………………………………………..11,344 11,344 167 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) ……………………………………………………………….47,287 47,287 168 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 14,700 295,114 Technical adjustment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[14,700 ] 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 18,412 183 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 50,000 242,883 ALQ–128 EW suite for ANG units …………………………………………………………………………………………[50,000 ] 191 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION …………………………………………………………………………………………..15,238 15,238 192 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….603,553 –19,700 583,853 Program reduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–19,700 ] 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

410 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 –26,500 79,602 Unjustified request …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–26,500 ] 204 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) …………………………………………………………………………………….6,413 6,413 205 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ……………………………………………………………………120,664 –41,800 78,864 Program reduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–5,800 ] Radar controller program delay …………………………………………………………………………………………..[–36,000 ] 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 14,888 214 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

411 237 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 3,000 109,873 SIGINT single-pod development ……………………………………………………………………………………………[3,000 ] 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 2,500 8,771 Augmentation of air surveillance and early warning radar systems ………………………………………..[2,500 ] 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 17,000 65,518 EO/IR sensor upgrades ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….[17,000 ] 270 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………………………………..175,334 175,334 Gorgon Stare ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[10,800 ] Program reduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–10,800 ] 271 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………..14,223 14,223 272 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………..24,554 24,554 273 0305220F RQ–4 UAV …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………221,690 –9,800 211,890 RQ–4 infrastructure unjustified request ……………………………………………………………………………….[–9,800 ] 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

412 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 50,933 300 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 2,023 305 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 99,734 309 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

413 312 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 72,256 322 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 327A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16,534,124 –143,900 16,390,224 Classifed adjustment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–40,000 ] Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–89,900 ] PDSA staff reduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–14,000 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………….22,891,740 –154,500 22,737,240 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF………………………………………………………….40,178,343 694,100 40,872,443 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37,023 37,023 002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………422,130 –6,000 416,130 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–6,000 ] 003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………42,702 42,702 004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ……………………………………………………………………….47,825 47,825 005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………………………85,919 85,919 006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS ……………………………………30,412 10,000 40,412 Program increase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] 007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………..42,103 42,103

414 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH……………………………………………………………………………………………………708,114 4,000 712,114 APPLIED RESEARCH 008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………19,170 19,170 009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..101,300 101,300 011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………………..51,596 51,596 012 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ……………………………………………………60,688 60,688 013 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………….395,317 395,317 014 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE …………………………………………………………………………………………………..38,640 38,640 015 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………..192,674 192,674 016 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….14,969 14,969 017 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….335,466 335,466 018 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………..226,898 226,898 019 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………333,847 333,847 020 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION APPLIED RESEARCH ……………………………………………………161,151 161,151 021 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ………………………………………………………..9,300 9,300 022 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………35,921 35,921 SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,976,937 1,976,937 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 023 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………..25,598 25,598 024 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………..125,271 125,271 025 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ………………………………………………………………………………………………….24,532 24,532 027 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ………………………299,858 299,858 028 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………………….13,017 13,017 029 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10,000 10,000 Accelerate hypersonic defense capability ……………………………………………………………………………..[10,000 ]

415 031 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20,365 20,000 40,365 Accelerate hypersonic defense capability ……………………………………………………………………………..[20,000 ] 032 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………….18,644 18,644 034 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………277,603 277,603 035 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………..254,671 254,671 036 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19,472 19,472 037 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS …………………………………………………………………………37,263 37,263 038 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS—MHA ………………………………………………………………13,621 13,621 039 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………..189,753 –89,000 100,753 Early to need ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–89,000 ] 040 0603342D8W DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT EXPERIMENTAL (DIUX) ………………………………………………………………………..29,364 29,364 041 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..83,143 83,143 042 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ………………………………….142,826 142,826 043 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………161,128 161,128 044 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………12,918 12,918 045 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ………………………………………………………………………..106,049 106,049 046 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ……………………………………………………………………………….12,696 12,696 047 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM …………………………………………114,637 114,637 048 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………….49,667 49,667 049 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………..48,338 48,338 050 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ……………………………………………………………..11,778 11,778 052 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………..76,514 76,514 053 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ……………………………………………………168,931 168,931 054 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………………………….5,992 5,992 055 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ……………………………………………………………………………………..111,099 111,099 056 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………185,984 185,984 057 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………….438,569 438,569 058 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………190,128 190,128 059 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………13,564 13,564 060 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ……………………………………………………………………………………………..15,050 15,050 061 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………69,626 69,626 062 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………..19,415 19,415

416 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 063 0603924D8Z HIGH ENERGY LASER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………69,533 69,533 064 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………96,389 96,389 065 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT …………………………………………………………………………40,582 40,582 066 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26,644 26,644 067 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………..79,380 79,380 SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………………………..3,699,612 –59,000 3,640,612 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 068 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P ……………………………….28,140 28,140 069 0603600D8Z WALKOFF ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………92,222 92,222 070 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA & INFORMATION SERVICES ……………………………………………………………2,506 2,506 071 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM …………………………………………………..40,016 40,016 072 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ……………………………………………………………214,173 145,000 359,173 Accelerate USFK JEON delivery …………………………………………………………………………………………….[100,000 ] Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[45,000 ] 073 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ………………………………………………………..926,359 –200,000 726,359 Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[8,000 ] Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–208,000 ] 074 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL …………………………………………………………..129,886 129,886 075 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS …………………………………………………………………………………………220,876 25,000 245,876 Accelerate USFK JEON delivery …………………………………………………………………………………………….[20,000 ] Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] 076 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………540,926 540,926 077 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA …………………………………………………………………………………………………………422,348 422,348 078 0603892C AEGIS BMD ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..767,539 767,539 081 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATI ……475,168 8,000 483,168 Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[8,000 ]

417 082 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT …………………………………………………………….48,767 48,767 083 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) …………………………………………………..54,925 54,925 084 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16,916 16,916 085 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) ………………………………………………………………………………………………..149,715 –33,000 116,715 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–33,000 ] 086 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….300,000 300,000 087 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST ……………………………………………………………………………………………….365,681 65,000 430,681 Accelerate USFK JEON delivery …………………………………………………………………………………………….[50,000 ] Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[15,000 ] 088 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ………………………………………………………………………………………….517,852 –26,500 491,352 Accelerate USFK JEON delivery …………………………………………………………………………………………….[4,500 ] Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–36,000 ] 089 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,347 11,347 090 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,528 8,528 091 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………3,477 3,477 092 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES …………………………………………………………………………………………148,822 55,000 203,822 Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] Continue directed energy and boost phase intercept efforts …………………………………………………..[50,000 ] 093 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………58,607 58,607 094 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING ……………..12,993 12,993 095 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..120,444 10,000 130,444 Accelerate hypersonic defense capability ……………………………………………………………………………..[10,000 ] 096 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ………………………………………………………………………………………..1,431,702 –50,000 1,381,702 Program reduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–50,000 ] 097 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS ……………………………………………………………………………………233,142 233,142 098 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM ……………………………………………………………………………………………………99,333 99,333 098A 0604342D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY OFFSET ……………………………………………………………………………………………………100,000 100,000 Directed energy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[100,000 ] 099 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON DEVELOPMENT ……………………………….3,781 3,781 100 0604673C PACIFIC DISCRIMINATING RADAR ………………………………………………………………………………………………….95,765 95,765 101 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA) ………………………………………………………….3,768 3,768

418 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–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) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….27,692 150 27,842 Retain Poland CHUs …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[150 ] 111 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST ………………………………………………………………81,934 –9,300 72,634 Forward financed in the FY18 Omnibus ……………………………………………………………………………….[–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 58,000 74,484 Address cyber threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[8,000 ] Develop space sensor architecture ………………………………………………………………………………………[50,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES…………………………………………8,709,725 7,950 8,717,675 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 ……………………………………………………………………..263,414 150,000 413,414 Accelerate program …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[150,000 ] 120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD …………………………………………………………………388,701 388,701 121 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) …………………………………………………………19,503 19,503

419 122 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………….6,163 6,163 123 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………..11,988 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 9,590 127 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION …………………………………………………..3,173 3,173 128 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………2,105 2,105 129 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 6,374 133 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS ……………………………………………………………………………………56,178 56,178 134 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…………………………………………………………..831,189 150,000 981,189 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) ……………………………………………..258,796 258,796 140 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 84,184 143 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………………………………22,576 22,576 144 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ………………………………………….52,565 –10,000 42,565 Unjustified program growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………[–10,000 ] 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

420 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 20,179 164 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 188A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….45,604 45,604 SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT………………………………………………………………………………………….1,117,030 –10,000 1,107,030 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 189 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ………………………………………………………………………………………….9,750 9,750

421 190 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 10,000 17,940 Expand cyber scholarship program ………………………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 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 6,262 225 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 2,970 233 0305327V INSIDER THREAT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5,954 5,954 234 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 –5,000 179,993

422 SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Realignment of funds …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–5,000 ] 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 258A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3,877,898 3,877,898 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………………4,973,946 5,000 4,978,946 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW………………………………………………………..22,016,553 97,950 22,114,503 OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………85,685 85,685 002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION …………………………………………………………………………………………………64,332 64,332 003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES ……………………………………………………………………………..70,992 70,992 SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT………………………………………………………………………………………….221,009 221,009 TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE……………………………………………………………………221,009 221,009 TOTAL RDT&E…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………91,056,950 859,700 91,916,650

423 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 House Change House Authorized ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 056 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING …………………………………………………………………………1,000 –1,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………….[–1,000 ] 058 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV …………………………………………………………….1,500 1,500 061 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY …………………………………………………………………………………………..3,000 3,000 076 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) …………………………………………………………………..23,000 –23,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………….[–23,000 ] SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES………………………………………………28,500 –24,000 4,500 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 088 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………………………………………………………………..236,863 236,863 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 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………….[–2,000 ] 209 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ……………………………………………………………….8,000 8,000

424 SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 216 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ………………………………………………………………………………………..23,199 23,199 226 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………………..14,000 –14,000 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base ……………………………………………………………….[–14,000 ] 231 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………..2,214 2,214 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………………59,741 –16,000 43,741 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY……………………………………………………….325,104 –40,000 285,104 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 041 0603527N RETRACT LARCH …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18,000 18,000 061 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………13,900 13,900 074 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,400 1,400 SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES………………………………………………33,300 33,300 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 149 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) ……………………………………………………………………………………..1,100 1,100 SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION………………………………………………………………..1,100 1,100 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 236 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS …………………………………………………………………………………..16,130 16,130 268A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………117,282 117,282 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………………133,412 133,412 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY………………………………………………………..167,812 167,812 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 065 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,100 1,100

425 070 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE ………………………………………………………………………………………………12,395 12,395 SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES………………………………………………13,495 13,495 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 327A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………188,127 188,127 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………………300,776 300,776 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF……………………………………………………………314,271 314,271 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 024 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………………………..25,000 25,000 026 0603134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT SIMULATION ……………………………………………………………………………………13,648 13,648 SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT……………………………………………………………………..38,648 38,648 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 094 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING ……………….242,668 242,668 SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES…………………………………………..242,668 242,668 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 250 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,632 3,632 251 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,040 11,040 253 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,700 11,700 254 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….725 725

426 SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Program Element Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 258A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………192,131 192,131 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………………..219,228 219,228 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW…………………………………………………………..500,544 500,544 TOTAL RDT&E…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,307,731 –40,000 1,267,731

427 TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,076,360 –445,300 1,631,060 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[9,400 ] Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–454,700 ] 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..107,946 1,800 109,746 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[1,800 ] 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………732,485 –143,970 588,515 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[7,600 ] Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–151,570 ] 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,169,508 –224,200 945,308 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[18,300 ] Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–242,500 ] 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,180,460 17,500 1,197,960 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[17,500 ] 060 AVIATION ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,467,500 17,800 1,485,300 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[17,800 ] 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,285,211 –604,260 3,680,951 Female personal protective equipment …………………………………………………………………………………………………….[2,000 ] Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–606,260 ] 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..482,201 482,201

428 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,536,851 –161,620 1,375,231 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[111,200 ] Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–272,820 ] 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,274,299 –606,260 7,668,039 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–606,260 ] 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,516,859 –1,018,881 2,497,978 85% Sustainment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[175,469 ] Capability Output Level 3 Funding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[25,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–1,219,350 ] 111 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………1,054,140 1,054,140 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[1,054,140 ] 112 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….215,210 215,210 Program increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[50,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[165,210 ] 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….195,964 195,964 210 US FORCES KOREA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..59,625 59,625 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25,905,788 –1,898,041 24,007,747 MOBILIZATION 220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..370,941 370,941 230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….573,560 158,753 732,313 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base …………………………………………………………………………………[158,753 ] 240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7,678 7,678 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….952,179 158,753 1,110,932

429 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….698,962 698,962 340 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 5,141,369 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………588,047 –151,600 436,447 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–151,600 ] 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

430 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..48,251 10,000 58,251 NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence ………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence ……………………………………………………………………………….[5,000 ] 565 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,259,622 1,259,622 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES……………………………………………………………………………………………….10,009,981 –141,600 9,868,381 UNDISTRIBUTED 570 UNDISTRIBUTED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..–894,500 –894,500 Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–210,300 ] Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–694,200 ] Simulators and other technologies to reduce the use of live animal tissue for medical training …………………..[10,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–894,500 –894,500 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY………………………………………………………………………………………….42,009,317 –2,775,388 39,233,929 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13,867 13,867 020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………536,438 536,438 030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………113,225 113,225 040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………551,141 551,141 050 AVIATION ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..89,073 89,073 060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..409,531 409,531 070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..101,411 101,411 080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..60,114 60,114 090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..595,728 595,728 100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..304,658 –41,593 263,065

431 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–71,593 ] Sustainment recovery …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[30,000 ] 101 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………49,176 49,176 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[49,176 ] 102 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22,417 22,417 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[22,417 ] 110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS …………………………………………………………………………………………….22,175 22,175 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,797,361 30,000 2,827,361 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…………………………………………………………………………………………………..119,548 119,548 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES…………………………………………………………………………………..2,916,909 30,000 2,946,909 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….810,269 810,269 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..193,402 193,402 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………753,815 753,815 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………84,124 84,124 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31,881 31,881 060 AVIATION ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..973,874 973,874 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..784,086 784,086 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..51,353 51,353 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..221,633 221,633 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,129,942 1,129,942 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..919,947 –31,187 888,760

432 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–101,187 ] Sustainment recovery …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[70,000 ] 111 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………85,859 85,859 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[85,859 ] 112 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15,328 15,328 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[15,328 ] 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS …………………………………………………………………………………………….1,010,524 1,010,524 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6,964,850 70,000 7,034,850 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…………………………………………………………………………………………………..434,445 434,445 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG………………………………………………………………………………………….7,399,295 70,000 7,469,295 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5,372,399 5,372,399 020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,023,351 –8,758 2,014,593 Advanced skills management …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–8,758 ] 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ………………………………………………………………………………………56,225 56,225 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..156,081 156,081

433 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….682,379 682,379 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,253,756 37,400 1,291,156 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[37,400 ] 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….66,649 66,649 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….939,368 6,400 945,768 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[6,400 ] 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,751,526 148,600 8,900,126 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[116,600 ] Western Pacific Dry Dock capability ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[32,000 ] 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,168,876 2,168,876 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ……………………………………………………………………………………1,349,593 1,349,593 150 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 –4,500 819,452 Insufficient budget justification for submarine acoustic systems ……………………………………………………………….[–4,500 ] 290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..494,101 494,101 300 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..921,936 921,936 310 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,040,389 –328,167 1,712,222 85% Sustainment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[101,000 ] Capability Output Level 3 Funding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[20,000 ] Project oversight (Unjustified Growth) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–85,420 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–363,747 ]

434 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 311 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………243,745 243,745 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[243,745 ] 312 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….160,002 160,002 Program increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[40,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[120,002 ] 320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4,414,753 4,414,753 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41,725,992 254,722 41,980,714 MOBILIZATION 330 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….549,142 –148,597 400,545 Realign DoD Mobilization Alternation to NDSF ………………………………………………………………………………………….[–20,858 ] Realign LG Med Spd RO/RO Maintenance to NDSF ……………………………………………………………………………………[–127,739 ] 340 READY RESERVE FORCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………310,805 –310,805 Realign Ready Reserve Forces to NDSF ……………………………………………………………………………………………………[–310,805 ] 360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………161,150 161,150 370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………120,338 –72,350 47,988 Realign T-AH Maintenance to NDSF …………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–72,350 ] 390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24,097 24,097 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,165,532 –531,752 633,780 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 1,700 186,136 Naval Sea Cadets ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[1,700 ]

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 1,700 1,996,988 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 510 ADMINISTRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,089,964 1,089,964 530 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………..164,074 164,074 540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………….418,350 418,350 580 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………167,106 167,106 600 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………..333,556 333,556 610 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..663,690 663,690 650 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….705,087 705,087 765 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….574,994 574,994 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,116,821 4,116,821 UNDISTRIBUTED 770 UNDISTRIBUTED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..–398,100 –398,100 Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–55,100 ] Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–343,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–398,100 –398,100 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY…………………………………………………………………………………………..49,003,633 –673,430 48,330,203 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………873,320 12,400 885,720 Additional parts & spares to support intermediate & organizational maintenance ………………………………………[8,200 ] Additional training requirements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[4,200 ] 020 FIELD LOGISTICS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,094,187 1,094,187

436 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….314,182 26,900 341,082 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[26,900 ] 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….98,136 98,136 050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..183,546 183,546 060 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..832,636 –86,282 746,354 85% Sustainment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[42,400 ] Capability Output Level 3 Funding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–138,682 ] 061 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………61,469 61,469 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[61,469 ] 062 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….107,213 107,213 Program increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[30,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[77,213 ] 070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,151,390 2,151,390 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5,547,397 121,700 5,669,097 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…………………………………………………………………………………………………….818,144 818,144

437 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………29,735 29,735 170 ADMINISTRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………386,375 386,375 225 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….50,859 50,859 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..466,969 466,969 UNDISTRIBUTED 230 UNDISTRIBUTED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..–43,600 –43,600 Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–13,600 ] Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–30,000 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–43,600 –43,600 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS……………………………………………………………………………6,832,510 78,100 6,910,610 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 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36,356 4,795 41,151 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–5,205 ] Sustainment recovery …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] 111 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………3,205 3,205 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[3,205 ] 112 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,000 2,000

438 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[2,000 ] 120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….103,562 103,562 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,009,112 10,000 1,019,112 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 130 ADMINISTRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,868 1,868 140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………….12,849 12,849 160 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,177 3,177 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17,894 17,894 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES……………………………………………………………………………………1,027,006 10,000 1,037,006 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 010 OPERATING FORCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….99,173 8,700 107,873 Additional training requirements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[8,700 ] 020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19,430 19,430 030 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39,962 –14,296 25,666 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–22,296 ] Sustainment recovery …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[8,000 ] 031 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………22,296 22,296 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[22,296 ] 040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….101,829 101,829 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….260,394 16,700 277,094 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 050 ADMINISTRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,176 11,176

439 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..11,176 11,176 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE……………………………………………………………………………….271,570 16,700 288,270 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..758,178 758,178 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,509,027 1,509,027 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) …………………………………………………………………………………………..1,323,330 1,323,330 040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,511,830 84,500 3,596,330 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[46,500 ] Restoration of U–2 Tail #80–1099 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[38,000 ] 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,892,705 –270,881 2,621,824 85% Sustainment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[152,000 ] Capability Output Level 3 Funding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[23,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–445,881 ] 051 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………420,861 420,861 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[420,861 ] 052 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….67,020 67,020 Program increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[42,000 ] Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[25,020 ] 060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………7,613,084 74,800 7,687,884 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[74,800 ] 070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4,345,208 4,345,208 080 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

440 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 190 US CYBERCOM ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………329,474 329,474 200 US CENTCOM ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..166,024 166,024 210 US SOCOM ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………723 723 220 US TRANSCOM ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………535 535 225 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,164,810 1,164,810 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….33,797,280 376,300 34,173,580 MOBILIZATION 230 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,307,695 1,307,695 240 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..144,417 144,417 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,452,112 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 2,178,214

441 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 74,959 545 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,222,456 1,222,456 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,632,962 4,632,962 UNDISTRIBUTED 550 UNDISTRIBUTED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..–455,200 –455,200 Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–104,500 ] Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–350,700 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–455,200 –455,200 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE………………………………………………………………………………….42,060,568 –78,900 41,981,668 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 1,900 347,476 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[1,900 ] 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..120,736 2,367 123,103 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–27,633 ] Sustainment recovery …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[30,000 ] 041 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………27,633 27,633 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[27,633 ] 050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………241,239 18,700 259,939 Readiness restoration ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

442 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 060 BASE SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………385,922 385,922 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3,152,279 50,600 3,202,879 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………………………………………………………………………107,955 107,955 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE………………………………………………………………………………..3,260,234 50,600 3,310,834 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,619,940 2,619,940 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………623,265 623,265 030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………..748,287 748,287 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..303,792 –14,092 289,700 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[–34,092 ] Sustainment recovery …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[20,000 ] 041 FACILITIES RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………31,696 31,696 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[31,696 ] 042 FACILITIES DEMOLITION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,396 2,396 Realignment of FSRM funds to new RM and Demo lines …………………………………………………………………………..[2,396 ] 050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………1,061,759 3,000 1,064,759 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[3,000 ]

443 060 BASE SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………988,333 900 989,233 Readiness restoration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[900 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6,345,376 23,900 6,369,276 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 82,246 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG…………………………………………………………………………………………….6,427,622 23,900 6,451,522 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….430,215 430,215 020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF—CE2T2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..602,186 602,186 040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ……………………………………………………………………………………….5,389,250 –174,000 5,215,250 Civilian pay ahead of need …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–10,700 ] Communications ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–20,000 ] DCGS-SOF ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–10,000 ] MC–12 ahead of need ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–33,300 ] Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–100,000 ] SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6,421,651 –174,000 6,247,651 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 050 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….181,601 –9,100 172,501 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–9,100 ] 060 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….96,565 96,565 070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ……………………………………………………………………………..370,583 370,583 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING…………………………………………………………………………………………………….648,749 –9,100 639,649 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 080 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….166,131 20,000 186,131

444 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized STARBASE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[20,000 ] 100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..625,633 –31,300 594,333 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–31,300 ] 110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY …………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,465,354 –73,300 1,392,054 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–73,300 ] 120 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..859,923 –43,000 816,923 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–43,000 ] 130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,106,930 –105,300 2,001,630 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–105,300 ] 150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………27,403 –1,400 26,003 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–1,400 ] 160 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….379,275 6,475 385,750 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–19,000 ] Program increase for the Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) ………………………………………………[25,475 ] 170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….207,537 –10,400 197,137 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–10,400 ] 180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY …………………………………………………………………………………………………….130,696 130,696 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..754,711 754,711 200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….789,175 789,175 220 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION …………………………………………………………………………………………..34,951 –1,700 33,251 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–1,700 ] 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[40,000 ] Impact Aid for Children with Severe Disabilities ………………………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] 260 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..499,817 499,817 280 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………70,035 96,500 166,535

445 Defense Community Infrastructure Program ……………………………………………………………………………………………..[100,000 ] Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–3,500 ] 290 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,519,655 11,000 1,530,655 CDC PFOS/PFOA Health Study Increment ………………………………………………………………………………………………….[7,000 ] Contract support for ACCM oversight as directed by Sec. 1062 of FY17 NDAA ……………………………………………[5,000 ] Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–76,000 ] Establish Artificial Intelligence commission ……………………………………………………………………………………………..[10,000 ] Funds to support the Global Engagement Center ……………………………………………………………………………………..[60,000 ] Initial capital for Department of Defense World War II Commemoration Fund ……………………………………………..[2,000 ] Training of qualified personnel to join the staff of the Boards of Corrections for Military and Naval Records[3,000 ] 300 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES ……………………………………………………………………….97,787 97,787 310 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….456,407 –68,500 387,907 Efficiencies within the 4th estate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–68,500 ] 315 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15,645,192 15,645,192 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES……………………………………………………………………………………………….29,282,225 –150,925 29,131,300 UNDISTRIBUTED 320 UNDISTRIBUTED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..–411,800 –411,800 Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–26,400 ] Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–385,400 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–411,800 –411,800 TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE…………………………………………………………………………36,352,625 –745,825 35,606,800 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF ADMINISTRATION AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES 010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ………………………………………………………………………………14,662 14,662 SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………14,662 14,662 TOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF…………………………………………………………………….14,662 14,662 DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND

446 SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….400,000 400,000 SUBTOTAL ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………………………..400,000 400,000 TOTAL DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND…………………………………………………………………400,000 400,000 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE 010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ………………………………………………………………………………………..107,663 107,663 SUBTOTAL HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………107,663 107,663 TOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID………………………………………………………………..107,663 107,663 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT FSU THREAT REDUCTION 010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………335,240 335,240 SUBTOTAL FSU THREAT REDUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………..335,240 335,240 TOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT……………………………………………………………………………..335,240 335,240 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….203,449 10,000 213,449 PFOS/PFOA remediation increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] SUBTOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY……………………………………………………………………………………………………203,449 10,000 213,449 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY………………………………………………………………………………………203,449 10,000 213,449

447 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..329,253 10,000 339,253 PFOS/PFOA remediation increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[10,000 ] SUBTOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY…………………………………………………………………………………………………….329,253 10,000 339,253 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY……………………………………………………………………………………….329,253 10,000 339,253 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 100 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..296,808 50,000 346,808 PFOS/PFOA remediation increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[50,000 ] SUBTOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE……………………………………………………………………………………………296,808 50,000 346,808 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE……………………………………………………………………………….296,808 50,000 346,808 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE DEFENSE-WIDE 120 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,926 8,926 SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8,926 8,926 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE………………………………………………………………………………….8,926 8,926 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES DEFENSE-WIDE 140 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES …………………………………………………………………………………….212,346 212,346 SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………212,346 212,346 TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES………………………………………………………………212,346 212,346 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE…………………………………………………………………………………………………….199,469,636 –3,924,243 195,545,393

448 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 House Change House Authorized OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,179,339 454,700 1,634,039 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[454,700 ] 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25,983 151,570 177,553 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[151,570 ] 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,189,916 242,500 2,432,416 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[242,500 ] 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………188,609 188,609 060 AVIATION ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..120,787 120,787 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,867,286 606,260 4,473,546 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[606,260 ] 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..550,068 550,068 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..195,873 272,820 468,693 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[272,820 ] 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..109,560 606,260 715,820 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[606,260 ] 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..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 15,000 263,796 Contract personnel recovery/casualty evacuation in AFRICOM …………………………………………………………………….[15,000 ] 190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….98,127 98,127

449 200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,550 2,550 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15,876,377 2,349,110 18,225,487 MOBILIZATION 230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….158,753 –158,753 0 Realignment of EDI APS Unit Set from OCO to Base …………………………………………………………………………………[–158,753 ] SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….158,753 –158,753 0 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………712,230 151,600 863,830 Realign OCO requirements from Base to OCO ………………………………………………………………………………………….[151,600 ] 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………191,786 191,786 565 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,074,270 1,074,270 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES……………………………………………………………………………………………….2,175,370 151,600 2,326,970 UNDISTRIBUTED 570 UNDISTRIBUTED ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..–27,900 –27,900 Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–27,900 ] SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–27,900 –27,900 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY………………………………………………………………………………………….18,210,500 2,314,057 20,524,557 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 41,887

450 SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES…………………………………………………………………………………..41,887 41,887 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 010 MANEUVER UNITS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42,519 42,519 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..778 778 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12,093 12,093 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………708 708 060 AVIATION ASSETS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28,135 28,135 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5,908 5,908 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18,877 18,877 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS …………………………………………………………………………………………….956 956 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….109,974 109,974 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..755 755 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..755 755 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG………………………………………………………………………………………….110,729 110,729 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 1,908,277

451 AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE 130 SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..527,554 527,554 140 INFRASTRUCTURE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42,984 42,984 150 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14,554 14,554 160 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….181,922 181,922 SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE……………………………………………………………………………………………………..767,014 767,014 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 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……………………………………………………………………………………….702,029 702,029 TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND…………………………………………………………………………………….5,199,450 5,199,450 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 1,400,000 TOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND…………………………………………………………………………………….1,400,000 1,400,000

452 SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..435,507 435,507 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES ………………………………………………………………………………………800 800 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9,394 9,394 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….193,384 193,384 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………173,053 173,053 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3,524 3,524 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60,219 60,219 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..942,960 942,960 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20,236 20,236 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,022,647 1,022,647 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ……………………………………………………………………………………59,553 59,553 160 WARFARE TACTICS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16,651 16,651 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………………………………..31,118 31,118 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….635,560 635,560 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………..4,334 4,334 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ……………………………………………………………………………………..24,800 24,800 240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..355 355 280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..493,033 493,033 290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12,780 12,780 310 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..67,321 67,321 320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….211,394 211,394 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4,418,623 4,418,623

453 370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………12,902 12,902 390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………165,000 165,000 SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….177,902 177,902 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51,138 51,138 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING…………………………………………………………………………………………………….51,138 51,138 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 1,559 765 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16,076 16,076 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..109,492 109,492 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY…………………………………………………………………………………………..4,757,155 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 1,023,283 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 120 TRAINING SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30,459 30,459 SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING…………………………………………………………………………………………………….30,459 30,459 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES

454 SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………61,400 61,400 170 ADMINISTRATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,108 2,108 225 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4,650 4,650 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..68,158 68,158 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS……………………………………………………………………………1,121,900 1,121,900 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….500 500 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,400 11,400 080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13,737 13,737 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25,637 25,637 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES……………………………………………………………………………………25,637 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 3,345 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE……………………………………………………………………………….3,345 3,345 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..166,274 166,274

455 020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,492,580 1,492,580 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) …………………………………………………………………………………………..110,237 110,237 040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………..209,996 209,996 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..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 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 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

456 SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING…………………………………………………………………………………………………….29,330 29,330 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….240 240 545 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51,108 51,108 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES…………………………………………………………………………………………………..452,849 452,849 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE………………………………………………………………………………….9,285,789 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 60,500 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE………………………………………………………………………………..60,500 60,500 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3,560 3,560 060 BASE SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12,310 12,310 SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15,870 15,870

457 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG…………………………………………………………………………………………….15,870 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 3,761,832 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 –200,000 2,008,442 Transfer of funds to Ukraine Security Assistance fund ……………………………………………………………………………..[–200,000 ] 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 7,766 315 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,944,813 1,944,813 SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES……………………………………………………………………………………………….4,788,076 –200,000 4,588,076 TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE…………………………………………………………………………8,549,908 –200,000 8,349,908 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE 010 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..250,000 250,000 Program increase for defensive lethal assistance …………………………………………………………………………………….[50,000 ] Transfer of funds from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency ……………………………………………………………….[200,000 ] SUBTOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………..250,000 250,000

458 SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Line Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized TOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………….250,000 250,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE…………………………………………………………………………………………………….48,782,670 2,364,057 51,146,727

459 TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars) Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Military Personnel Appropriations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….140,689,301 –700,500 139,988,801 Control Grade Increase ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[7,000 ] Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–218,000 ] Historical unobligated balance ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[–761,500 ] Permanently reverse BAH reduction for Military Housing Privatization Initiative ……………………………………….[275,000 ] Program decrease ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[–3,000 ] Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions…………………………………………………………………………………………..7,533,090 7,533,090 Total, Military Personnel…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….148,222,391 –700,500 147,521,891 SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Military Personnel Appropriations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4,660,661 4,660,661

460 TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY ARMY ARSENALS INITIATIVE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….59,002 59,002 ARMY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..99,763 99,763 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY……………………………………………………………………………………….158,765 158,765 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE WORKING CAPITAL FUND ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………69,054 69,054 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE………………………………………………………………………………..69,054 69,054 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE WORKING CAPITAL FUND SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..48,096 48,096 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE………………………………………………………………………….48,096 48,096 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA WORKING CAPITAL FUND SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,266,200 1,266,200 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA………………………………………………………………………………………..1,266,200 1,266,200 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND SURGE SEALIFT RECAPITALIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….200,000 200,000 Program increase—one used vessel ……………………………………………………………………………………………………[200,000 ] LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….127,739 127,739

461 Transfer from OMN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[127,739 ] DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20,858 20,858 Transfer from OMN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[20,858 ] TAH MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………157,350 157,350 Service Life Extension of USNS Comfort (TAH 20) …………………………………………………………………………………[85,000 ] Transfer from OMN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[72,350 ] READY RESERVE AND PREPOSITIONING FORCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………310,805 310,805 Transfer from OMN …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[310,805 ] TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND……………………………………………………………………………………816,752 816,752 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..105,997 105,997 RDT&E ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….886,728 886,728 PROCUREMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,091 1,091 TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION……………………………………………………………………….993,816 993,816 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ……………………………………………………………………………..547,171 20,000 567,171 Combatting opioid trafficking and abuse …………………………………………………………………………………………….[20,000 ] DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..117,900 117,900 NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM …………………………………………………………………………………………………………117,178 117,178 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ……………………………………………………………………………..5,276 5,276 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF……………………………………………………………787,525 20,000 807,525 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..327,611 5,000 332,611 Program increase ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………[5,000 ] PROCUREMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,602 1,602 RDT&E ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….60 60 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL……………………………………………………………………………….329,273 5,000 334,273 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

462 SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized OPERATION & MAINTENANCE IN-HOUSE CARE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9,738,569 9,738,569 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15,103,735 15,103,735 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,107,961 2,107,961 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,039,878 2,039,878 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….307,629 307,629 EDUCATION AND TRAINING …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..756,778 756,778 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,090,845 2,090,845 RDT&E RESEARCH ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11,386 11,386 EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………75,010 5,000 80,010 Simulators and other technologies to reduce the use of live animal tissue for medical training ………………[5,000 ] ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………275,258 5,000 280,258 Simulators and other technologies to reduce the use of live animal tissue for medical training ………………[5,000 ] DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….117,529 5,000 122,529 Simulators and other technologies to reduce the use of live animal tissue for medical training ………………[5,000 ] ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..151,985 25,000 176,985 FDA approved devices to detect and monitor traumatic brain injury ………………………………………………………[10,000 ] Freeze-dried platelet derived hemostatic agents …………………………………………………………………………………..[10,000 ] Simulators and other technologies to reduce the use of live animal tissue for medical training ………………[5,000 ] MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..63,755 63,755 CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15,714 15,714 PROCUREMENT INITIAL OUTFITTING ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33,056 33,056 REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..343,424 343,424 DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODERNIZATION ……………………………………………………………………………………..496,680 496,680

463 UNDISTRIBUTED ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–492,500 –492,500 Foreign Currency adjustments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–22,100 ] Historical unobligated balances ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–470,400 ] TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM……………………………………………………………………………………………..33,729,192 –452,500 33,276,692 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………..37,381,921 389,252 37,771,173

464 SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars) Item FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY ARMY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6,600 6,600 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY……………………………………………………………………………………….6,600 6,600 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE WORKING CAPITAL FUND ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8,590 8,590 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE………………………………………………………………………………..8,590 8,590 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ……………………………………………………………………………..153,100 153,100 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF……………………………………………………………153,100 153,100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24,692 24,692 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL……………………………………………………………………………….24,692 24,692 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE IN-HOUSE CARE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….72,627 72,627 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..277,066 277,066 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2,375 2,375 TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM……………………………………………………………………………………………..352,068 352,068 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………..545,050 545,050

465 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 House Change House Agreement 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 –10,000 95,000 Army Honduras Soto Cano Air Base Barracks ……………………………………………………………21,000 21,000 Army Indiana Crane Army Ammunition Plant Railcar Holding Area …………………………………………..16,000 16,000 Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Microgird 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 Maryland Fort Meade Cantonment Area Roads ……………………………………..0 16,500 16,500 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 U.S. Military Academy Engineering Center …………………………………………….95,000 95,000 Army New York U.S. Military Academy 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

466 SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request House Change House Agreement Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Force Protection and Safety …………………………………0 50,000 50,000 Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Host Nation Support …………………………………………..34,000 34,000 Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….76,068 76,068 Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………72,000 72,000 Military Construction, Army Total………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,011,768 84,100 1,095,868 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 SW Asia Fleet Maintenance Facility & TOC ………………………..26,340 26,340 Navy California Camp Pendleton AAV-ACV Maintenance & Warehouse Facility …………49,410 49,410 Navy California Camp Pendleton Electrical Upgrades …………………………………………….4,020 4,020 Navy California Camp Pendleton Full Motion Trainer Facility ………………………………….10,670 10,670 Navy California Camp Pendleton Potable Water Distribution Improvements ……………..47,230 47,230 Navy California Camp Pendleton Supply Warehouse SOI-West ………………………………..0 16,600 16,600 Navy California Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Airfield Security Improvements …………………………….11,500 11,500 Navy California Marine Corps Air Station Miramar F–35 Vertical Landing Pads and Taxiway ……………..20,480 20,480 Navy California Naval Air Station Lemoore Communications Line Ops to Admin …………………….0 14,900 14,900 Navy California Naval Air Station Lemoore F–35 Maintenance Hangar ………………………………….112,690 112,690 Navy California Naval Base Coronado Aircraft Paint Complex ………………………………………..0 78,800 78,800 Navy California Naval Base Coronado CMV–22B Airfield Improvements ………………………….77,780 77,780 Navy California Naval Base San Diego Harbor Drive Switching Station ……………………………48,440 48,440 Navy California Naval Base San Diego LCS Mission Module Readiness Center …………………0 19,500 19,500 Navy California Naval Base San Diego Pier 8 Replacement ……………………………………………108,100 –59,353 48,747 Navy California Naval Base Ventura Directed Energy Systems Intergration Lab …………….22,150 22,150 Navy California Naval Base Ventura Missile Assembly Build & High Explosive Mag ………31,010 31,010

467 Navy California Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Causeway, Boat Channel & Turning Basin ……………117,830 117,830 Navy California Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Missile Magazines ………………………………………………0 21,800 21,800 Navy Cuba Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Consolidated Fire Station ……………………………………0 19,700 19,700 Navy Cuba Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Solid Waste Management Facility ………………………..85,000 85,000 Navy District Of Columbia Naval Observatory Master Time Clocks & Operations Facility …………….115,600 –55,600 60,000 Navy Florida Naval Air Station Whiting Field Air Traffic Control Tower (North Field) ………………….0 10,000 10,000 Navy Florida Naval Station Mayport LCS Operational Training Facility Addition ……………29,110 29,110 Navy Florida Naval Station Mayport LCS Support Facility …………………………………………..82,350 82,350 Navy Georgia Marine Corps Base 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 Machine Gun Range …………………………………………..141,287 –71,287 70,000 Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Ordnance Ops ……………………………………………………22,020 22,020 Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Unaccompanied Enlisted Housing ………………………..36,170 36,170 Navy Guam Naval Base Guam X-Ray Wharf Improvements (Berth 2) …………………..0 75,600 75,600 Navy Hawaii Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Drydock Waterfront Facility ………………………………….45,000 45,000 Navy Hawaii Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Water Transmission Line …………………………………….78,320 78,320 Navy Hawaii Marine Corps Base Hawaii Corrosion Control Hangar ……………………………………66,100 66,100 Navy Japan Kadena Air Base Tactical Operations Center ………………………………….9,049 9,049 Navy Maine Portsmouth Naval Yard Dry Dock #1 Superflood Basin ……………………………..109,960 –58,321 51,639 Navy Maine Portsmouth Naval Yard Extend Portal Crane Rail …………………………………….39,725 39,725 Navy Mississippi Naval Construction Battalion Center Expeditionary Combat Skills Student Berthing ………0 22,300 22,300 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2nd Radio BN Complex, Phase 2 …………………………0 51,300 51,300 Navy North Carolina Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ………………………………133,970 –73,970 60,000 Navy North Carolina Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Flightline Utility Modernization …………………………….106,860 –51,860 55,00

468 SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request House Change House Agreement Navy Pennsylvania Naval Support Activity Philadel-phia Submarine Propulsor Manufacturing Support Fac ….71,050 71,050 Navy South Carolina Marine Corps Air Station Beau-fort Cryogenics Facility ……………………………………………..0 6,300 6,300 Navy South Carolina Marine Corps Air Station Beau-fort Recycling/Hazardous Waste Facility ……………………..9,517 9,517 Navy South Carolina Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island Range Improvements & Modernization, Phase 2 ……35,190 35,190 Navy Utah Hill Air Force Base D5 Missile Motor Receipt/Storage Facility ……………..105,520 –50,520 55,000 Navy Virginia Marine Corps Base Quantico Ammunition Supply Point Upgrade, Phase 2 …………0 13,100 13,100 Navy Virginia Marine Corps Base Quantico TBS Fire Station …………………………………………………21,980 –21,980 0 Navy Virginia Portsmouth Ships Maintenance Facility ………………………………….26,120 26,120 Navy Washington Bangor Pier and Maintenance Facility ……………………………..88,960 88,960 Navy Washington Naval Air Station Whidbey Is-land Fleet Support Facility ………………………………………….19,450 19,450 Navy Washington Naval Air Station Whidbey Is-land Next Generation Jammer Facility ………………………….7,930 7,930 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Force Protection and Safety …………………………………0 50,000 50,000 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….185,542 –8,000 177,542 Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………28,579 28,579 Military Construction, Navy Total……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….2,543,189 –4,291 2,538,898 AF Alaska Eielson Air Force Base F–35 Aircraft Maintenance Unit Admin Facility ……..6,800 6,800 AF Alaska Eielson Air Force Base F–35 Conventional Munitions Maintenance Fac …….15,500 15,500 AF Alaska Eielson Air Force Base F–35A CATM Range ……………………………………………19,000 19,000 AF Alaska Eielson Air Force Base F–35A School Age Facility …………………………………..22,500 22,500 AF Arizona Davis Monthan Air Force Base AGE Facility ……………………………………………………….0 15,000 15,000

469 AF Arizona Luke Air Force Base F–35A Aircraft Maintenance Unit Facility ……………..23,000 23,000 AF Arizona Luke Air Force Base F–35A Squad Ops #6 …………………………………………17,000 17,000 AF Arkansas Little Rock Air Force Base Dormitory – 168 PN …………………………………………….0 26,000 26,000 AF Florida Eglin Air Force Base F–35A Integrated Trng Center Academics Bldg ……..34,863 34,863 AF Florida Eglin Air Force Base F–35A Student Dormitory II …………………………………28,000 28,000 AF Florida MacDill Air Force Base KC135 Beddown Add Flight Simulator Training ……..3,100 3,100 AF Florida Patrick Air Force Base Main Gate …………………………………………………………0 9,000 9,000 AF Guam Joint Region Marianas Hayman Munitions Storage Igloos MSA 2 ……………..9,800 9,800 AF Louisiana Barksdale Air Force Base Entrance Road and Gate Complex ……………………….0 12,250 12,250 AF Mariana Islands Tinian APR—Cargo Pad with Taxiway Extension ……………..46,000 46,000 AF Mariana Islands Tinian APR—Maintenance Support Facility …………………….4,700 4,700 AF Maryland Joint Base Andrews Child Development Center …………………………………..0 13,000 13,000 AF Maryland Joint Base Andrews MWD Facility ……………………………………………………..0 8,000 8,000 AF Maryland Joint Base Andrews PAR Relocate Haz Cargo Pad and EOD Range ………37,000 37,000 AF Maryland Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft Recap Complex, Inc. 2 ………….154,000 –30,884 123,116 AF Massachusetts Hanscom Air Force Base MIT-Lincoln Laboratory (West Lab CSL/MIF) …………..225,000 –185,000 40,000 AF Nebraska Offutt Air Force Base Parking Lot, USSTRATCOM …………………………………..9,500 9,500 AF Nevada Creech Air Force Base MQ–9 CPIP GCS Operations Facility ……………………..28,000 28,000 AF Nevada Creech Air Force Base MQ–9 CPIP Operations & Command Center Fac. …..31,000 31,000 AF Nevada Nellis Air Force Base CRH Simulator …………………………………………………..5,900 5,900 AF New Mexico Holloman Air Force Base MQ–9 FTU Ops Facility ……………………………………….85,000 85,000 AF New Mexico Kirtland Air Force Base Wyoming Gate Upgrade for Anti-terrorism Compli-ance.0 7,000 7,000 AF New York Rome Lab Anti-Terrorism Perimeter Security / Entry Control Point.0 14,200 14,200 AF North Dakota Minot Air Force Base Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/AMU and Alert Fac ……..66,000 66,000 AF Ohio Wright-Patterson Air Force Base ADAL Intelligence Production Complex (NASIC) ………116,100 –55,100 61,000 AF Oklahoma Altus Air Force Base KC–46A FTU/FTC Simulator Facility Ph 3 ………………12,000 12,000 AF Oklahoma Tinker Air Force Base KC–46A Depot Fuel Maintenance Hangar ……………..85,000 85,000 AF Oklahoma Tinker Air Force Base KC–46A Depot Maintenance Hangar …………………….81,000 81,000 AF Qatar Al Udeid Flightline Support Facilities …………………………………30,400 –30,400 0 AF Qatar Al Udeid Personnel Deployment Processing Facility ……………..40,000 –40,000 0

470 SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request House Change House Agreement AF South Carolina Shaw Air Force Base CPIP MQ–9 MCE GROUP ……………………………………..53,000 53,000 AF Texas Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 6 …………………………………….25,000 25,000 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A 6 Bay Hangar ………………………………………….39,036 39,036 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A ADAL Conventional Munitions MX ………………9,204 9,204 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A ADAL Parts Store ……………………………………..13,926 13,926 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A AGE Facility …………………………………………….12,449 12,449 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A Dorm ………………………………………………………29,541 29,541 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A Fuel System Maintenance Dock 2 Bay ………..16,880 16,880 AF United Kingdom RAF Lakenheath F–35A Parking Apron ………………………………………….27,431 27,431 AF Utah Hill Air Force Base Composite Aircraft Antenna Calibration Fac ………….0 26,000 26,000 AF Washington Fairchild—White Bluff ADAL JPRA C2 Mission Support Facility ………………..0 14,000 14,000 AF Worldwide Classified Classified Location TACMOR—Utilities and Infrastructure Support ……..18,000 18,000 AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Force Protection and Safety …………………………………0 50,000 50,000 AF Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….206,577 –8,000 198,577 AF Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ……………….38,500 38,500 Military Construction, AF Total………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,725,707 –154,934 1,570,773 Def-Wide Alaska Clear Air Force Station Long Range Discrim Radar Sys Complex Ph2 ……….174,000 –44,000 130,000 Def-Wide Alaska Fort Greely Missile Field #1 Expansion ………………………………….8,000 –8,000 0 Def-Wide Alaska Joint Base Elmendorf-Richard-son Operations Facility Replacement ………………………….14,000 14,000 Def-Wide Arkansas Little Rock Air Force Base Hydrant Fuel System Alterations ………………………….14,000 14,000 Def-Wide Belgium Chievres Air Base Europe West District Superintendent’s Office ………..14,305 14,305 Def-Wide California Camp Pendleton SOF EOD Facility—West ……………………………………..3,547 3,547 Def-Wide California Camp Pendleton SOF Human Performance Training Center-West ……..9,049 9,049 Def-Wide California Defense Distribution Depot-Tracy Main Access Control Point Upgrades ……………………18,800 18,800 Def-Wide California Naval Base Coronado SOF ATC Applied Instruction Facility …………………….14,819 14,819

471 Def-Wide California Naval Base Coronado SOF ATC Training Facility ……………………………………18,329 18,329 Def-Wide California Naval Base Coronado SOF Close Quarters Combat Facility …………………….12,768 12,768 Def-Wide California Naval Base Coronado SOF NSWG–1 Operations Support Facility ……………..25,172 25,172 Def-Wide Colorado Fort Carson SOF Human Performance Training Center ……………..15,297 15,297 Def-Wide Colorado Fort Carson SOF Mountaineering Facility ………………………………..9,000 9,000 Def-Wide Conus Classified Classified Location Battalion Complex, PH2 ………………………………………49,222 49,222 Def-Wide Cuba Naval Base Guantanamo Bay Working Dog Treatment Facility Replacement ………..9,080 9,080 Def-Wide Germany Baumholder SOF Joint Parachute Rigging Facility ……………………11,504 11,504 Def-Wide Germany Kaiserlautern Air Base Kaiserslautern Middle School ………………………………99,955 99,955 Def-Wide Germany Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Inc. 8 ……………………..319,589 319,589 Def-Wide Germany Weisbaden Clay Kaserne Elementary School ………………………….56,048 56,048 Def-Wide Japan Camp Mctureous Bechtel Elementary School ………………………………….94,851 94,851 Def-Wide Japan Iwakuni Fuel Pier ……………………………………………………………33,200 33,200 Def-Wide Japan Kadena Air Base Truck Unload Facilities ……………………………………….21,400 21,400 Def-Wide Japan Yokosuka Kinnick High School ……………………………………………170,386 –130,386 40,000 Def-Wide Kentucky Fort Campbell Ft Campbell Middle School ………………………………….62,634 62,634 Def-Wide Kentucky Fort Campbell SOF Air/Ground Integ. Urban Live Fire Range ………..9,091 9,091 Def-Wide Kentucky Fort Campbell SOF Logistics Support Operations Facility …………….5,435 5,435 Def-Wide Kentucky Fort Campbell SOF Multi-Use Helicopter Training Facility …………….5,138 5,138 Def-Wide Maine Kittery Consolidated Warehouse Replacement ………………….11,600 11,600 Def-Wide Maryland Fort Meade Mission Support Operations Warehouse Facility …….30,000 30,000 Def-Wide Maryland Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #2 Inc 4 …………………..218,000 218,000 Def-Wide Maryland Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #3 Inc 1 …………………..99,000 99,000 Def-Wide Missouri St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) Complex Phase 1 Inc. 2 ……..213,600 –32,600 181,000 Def-Wide Missouri St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) Complex Phase 2 Inc. 1 ……..110,000 110,000 Def-Wide New Jersey Joint Base Mcguire-Dix- Lakehurst Hot Cargo Hydrant System Replacement ………………10,200 10,200 Def-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Replace Training Maze and Tower …………………12,109 12,109 Def-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF SERE Resistance Training Lab. Complex ………..20,257 20,257 Def-Wide North Carolina New River Amb Care Center/Dental Clinic Replacement ………..32,580 32,580 Def-Wide Oklahoma Mcalester Bulk Diesel System Replacement …………………………7,000 7,000 Def-Wide Texas Joint Base San Antonio Energy Aerospace Operations Facility ……………………10,200 10,200

472 SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request House Change House Agreement Def-Wide Texas Red River Army Depot General Purpose Warehouse ………………………………..71,500 71,500 Def-Wide United Kingdom Croughton RAF Ambulatory Care Center Addition/Alteration …………..10,000 –10,000 0 Def-Wide Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Training Campus ……………………………………………….11,734 11,734 Def-Wide Virginia Fort Belvoir Human Performance Training Center ……………………6,127 6,127 Def-Wide Virginia Humphreys Engineer Center Maintenance and Supply Facility …………………………20,257 20,257 Def-Wide Virginia Joint Base Langley-Eustis Fuel Facilities Replacement …………………………………6,900 6,900 Def-Wide Virginia Joint Base Langley-Eustis Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility Replacement ………..5,800 5,800 Def-Wide Virginia Pentagon Exterior Infrastruc. & Security Improvements ………..23,650 23,650 Def-Wide Virginia Pentagon North Village VACP & Fencing ……………………………..12,200 12,200 Def-Wide Virginia Traning Center Dam Neck SOF Magazines …………………………………………………..8,959 8,959 Def-Wide Washington Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Refueling Facility ……………………………………………….26,200 26,200 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Contingency Construction ……………………………………10,000 –10,000 0 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Energy Resilience and Conserv. Invest. Prog. ………..150,000 15,000 165,000 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations ERCIP Design …………………………………………………….10,000 10,000 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Exercise Related Minor Construction …………………….12,479 12,479 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….86,941 86,941 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………31,642 31,642 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning & Design ……………………………………………..42,705 42,705 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….55,699 55,699 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………17,366 17,366 Military Construction, Def-Wide Total………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2,693,324 –219,986 2,473,338 NATO Worldwide Unspecified Nato Security Investment Pro-gram Nato Security Investment Program ……………………….171,064 171,064 NATO Security Investment Program Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..171,064 0 171,064

473 Army NG Alaska Joint Base Elmendorf-Richard-son United States Property & Fiscal Office …………………27,000 27,000 Army NG Illinois Marseilles Training Center Automated Record Fire Range ……………………………..5,000 5,000 Army NG Montana Malta National Guard Readiness Center ………………………..15,000 15,000 Army NG Nevada North Las Vegas National Guard Readiness Center ………………………..32,000 32,000 Army NG New Hampshire Pembroke National Guard Readiness Center ………………………..12,000 12,000 Army NG North Dakota Fargo National Guard Readiness Center ………………………..32,000 32,000 Army NG Ohio Camp Ravenna Automated Multipurpose Machine Gun Range ……….7,400 7,400 Army NG Oklahoma Lexington Aircraft Vehicle Storage Building …………………………0 11,000 11,000 Army NG South Dakota Rapid City National Guard Readiness Center ………………………..15,000 15,000 Army NG Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….16,622 16,622 Army NG Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………18,100 18,100 Military Construction, Army National Guard Total……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….180,122 11,000 191,122 Army Res California Fort Irwin ECS Modified TEMF / Warehouse ………………………….34,000 34,000 Army Res Washington Yakima Training Center ECS Modified TEMF …………………………………………….0 23,000 23,000Army Res Wisconsin Fort Mccoy Transient Training Barracks ………………………………..23,000 23,000 Army Res Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….5,855 5,855 Army Res Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………2,064 2,064 Military Construction, Army Reserve Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………64,919 23,000 87,919 N/MC Res California Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Reserve Training Center ……………………………………..21,740 21,740 N/MC Res Georgia Fort Benning Reserve Training Center ……………………………………..13,630 13,630 N/MC Res Pennsylvania Pittsburgh Reserve Training Center ……………………………………..0 0 N/MC Res Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning & Design ……………………………………………..4,695 4,695 N/MC Res Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………3,000 3,000 Military Construction, Naval Reserve Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43,065 0 43,065 Air NG California Channel Islands Air National Guard Station Construct C–130J Flight Simulator Facility …………..8,000 8,000 Air NG Hawaii Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam Construct Addition to F–22 LO/CRF B3408 …………..17,000 17,000

474 SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request House Change House Agreement Air NG Illinois Greater Peoria Regional Airport Construct New Fire Crash/Rescue Station …………….9,000 9,000 Air NG Louisiana New Orleans NORTHCOM—Construct Alert Apron ……………………..15,000 15,000 Air NG Louisiana New Orleans NORTHCOM—Construct Alert Facilities …………………0 24,000 24,000 Air NG Minnesota Duluth International Airport Construct Small Arms Range ………………………………0 8,000 8,000 Air NG Montana Great Falls International Airport Construct Aircraft Apron ……………………………………..0 9,000 9,000 Air NG New York Francis S. Gabreski Airport Security Forces/Comm.Training Facility …………………20,000 20,000 Air NG Ohio Mansfield Lahm Airport Replace Fire Station …………………………………………..0 13,000 13,000 Air NG Ohio Rickenbacker International Air-port Construct Small Arms Range ………………………………0 8,000 8,000 Air NG Pennsylvania Fort Indiantown Gap Replace Operations Training/Dining Hall ………………8,000 8,000 Air NG Virginia Joint Base Langley-Eustis Construct Cyber Ops Facility ……………………………….10,000 10,000 Air NG Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………23,626 23,626 Air NG Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ………………………………………….18,500 18,500 Military Construction, Air National Guard Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..129,126 62,000 191,126 AF Res Florida Patrick Air Force Base HC–130J Mx Hanger …………………………………………..0 24,000 24,000 AF Res Indiana Grissom Air Reserve Base Add/Alter Aircraft Maintenance Hangar ………………..12,100 12,100 AF Res Indiana Grissom Air Reserve Base Aerial Port Facility ……………………………………………..0 9,400 9,400 AF Res Massachusetts Westover Air Reserve Base Regional ISO Mx Hanger ……………………………………..0 42,600 42,600 AF Res Minnesota Minneapolis-St Paul Inter-national Airport Small Arms Range ……………………………………………..9,000 9,000 AF Res Mississippi Keesler Air Force Base Aeromedical Staging Squadron Facility …………………4,550 4,550 AF Res New York Niagara Falls International Air-port Physical Fitness Center ………………………………………14,000 14,000 AF Res Ohio Youngstown Air Rserve Station Relocation Main Gate …………………………………………0 8,800 8,800 AF Res Texas Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth Munitions Training/Admin Facility ………………………..3,100 3,100

475 AF Res Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning & Design ……………………………………………..4,055 4,055 AF Res Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ……………………………3,358 3,358 Military Construction, Air Force Reserve Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..50,163 84,800 134,963 FH Con Army Germany Baumholder Family Housing Improvements ……………………………..32,000 32,000 FH Con Army Italy Vicenza Family Housing New Construction ………………………..95,134 95,134 FH Con Army Korea Camp Humphreys Family Housing New Construction Incr 3 ………………85,000 85,000 FH Con Army Korea Camp Walker Family Housing Replacement Construction ……………68,000 68,000 FH Con Army Puerto Rico Fort Buchanan Family Housing Replacement Construction ……………26,000 26,000 FH Con Army Wisconsin Fort Mccoy Family Housing New Construction ………………………..6,200 6,200 FH Con Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Family Housing P & D ………………………………………..18,326 18,326 Family Housing Construction, Army Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..330,660 0 330,660 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ……………………………………………………….15,842 15,842 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization Support ……………………………..18,801 1,500 20,301 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ……………………………………………………………..161,252 161,252 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance ………………………………………………………75,530 75,530 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management ……………………………………………………..36,302 –1,500 34,802 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous …………………………………………………….408 408 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services …………………………………………………………….10,502 10,502 FH Ops Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ……………………………………………………………..57,872 57,872 Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Army Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………….376,509 0 376,509 FH Con Navy Mariana Islands Guam Replace Anderson Housing PH III …………………………83,441 83,441 FH Con Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Design, Washington DC ………………………………………4,502 4,502 FH Con Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Improvements, Washington DC …………………………….16,638 16,638 Family Housing Construction, Navy And Marine Corps Total……………………………………………………………………………………………….104,581 0 104,581 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ……………………………………………………….16,395 16,395 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization Support ……………………………..21,767 1,500 23,267 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ……………………………………………………………..62,515 62,515 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance ………………………………………………………86,328 86,328

476 SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars) Account State/ Country Installation Project Title FY 2019 Request House Change House Agreement FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management ……………………………………………………..50,870 –1,500 49,370 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous …………………………………………………….148 148 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services …………………………………………………………….16,261 16,261 FH Ops Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ……………………………………………………………..60,252 60,252 Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Navy And Marine Corps Total…………………………………………………………………………314,536 0 314,536 FH Con AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Construction Improvements …………………………………75,247 75,247 FH Con AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning & Design ……………………………………………..3,199 3,199 Family Housing Construction, Air Force Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….78,446 0 78,446 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ……………………………………………………….30,645 30,645 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization Support ……………………………..22,205 1,500 23,705 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ……………………………………………………………..15,832 15,832 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance ………………………………………………………129,763 129,763 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management ……………………………………………………..54,423 –1,500 52,923 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous …………………………………………………….2,171 2,171 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services …………………………………………………………….13,669 13,669 FH Ops AF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ……………………………………………………………..48,566 48,566 Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Air Force Total………………………………………………………………………………………………317,274 0 317,274 FH Ops DW Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings ……………………………………………………….1,060 1,060 FH Ops DW Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ……………………………………………………………..51,278 51,278 FH Ops DW Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance ………………………………………………………1,663 1,663 FH Ops DW Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management ……………………………………………………..155 155 FH Ops DW Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services …………………………………………………………….2 2 FH Ops DW Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ……………………………………………………………..4,215 4,215 Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Defense-Wide Total………………………………………………………………………………………..58,373 0 58,373

477 FHIF Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Administrative Expenses—FHIF ……………………………1,653 1,653 DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund Total……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,653 0 1,653 UHIF Worldwide Unspecified Unaccompanied Housing Im-provement Fund Administrative Expenses—UHIF …………………………..600 600 Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund Total……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..600 0 600 BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Base Realignment and Closure ……………………………62,796 18,110 80,906 BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Base Realignment and Closure ……………………………151,839 19,110 170,949 BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Locations Base Realignment and Closure ……………………………52,903 18,110 71,013 Base Realignment and Closure Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………267,538 55,330 322,868 PYS Prior Year Savings Prior Year Savings Prior Year Savings ……………………………………………..0 –71,158 –71,158 Prior Year Savings Total…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..0 –71,158 –71,158 Total, Military Construction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10,462,617 –130,139 10,332,478

478 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 House Change House Agreement Army Bulgaria Nevo Selo EDI: Ammunition Holding Area …………………………………….5,200 5,200 Army Cuba Guantanamo Bay High Value Detention Facility ………………………………………69,000 –69,000 0 Army Poland Drawsko Pomorski Training Area EDI: Staging Area ………………………………………………………17,000 17,000 Army Poland Powidz Air Base EDI: Ammunition Storage Facility …………………………………52,000 52,000 Army Poland Powidz Air Base EDI: Bulk Fuel Storage ……………………………………………….21,000 21,000 Army Poland Powidz Air Base EDI: Rail Extension & Railhead ……………………………………14,000 14,000 Army Poland Zagan Training Area EDI: Rail Extension and Railhead ………………………………..6,400 6,400 Army Poland Zagan Training Area EDI: Staging Area ………………………………………………………34,000 34,000 Army Romania Mihail Kogalniceanu EDI: Explosives & Ammo Load/Unload Apron …………………21,651 21,651 Army Worldwide Unspec-ified Unspecified Worldwide Locations EDI: Planning and Design …………………………………………..20,999 20,999 Military Construction, Army Total………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………261,250 –69,000 192,250 Navy Greece Souda Bay EDI: Joint Mobility Processing Center ……………………………41,650 41,650 Navy Greece Souda Bay EDI: Marathi Logistics Support Center ………………………….6,200 6,200 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 Unspec-ified Unspecified Worldwide Locations EDI: Planning and Design …………………………………………..12,700 12,700 Military Construction, Navy Total……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….227,320 0 227,320 AF Germany Ramstein AB EDI: KMC DABS-FEV/RH Storage Warehouses ………………..119,000 119,000 AF Norway Rygge EDI: Construct Taxiway ……………………………………………….13,800 13,800 AF Qatar Al Udeid Flight line Support Facilities ……………………………………….0 30,400 30,400

479 AF Qatar Al Udeid Personnel Deployment Processing Facility …………………….0 40,000 40,000 AF Slovakia Malacky EDI: Regional Munitions Storage Area ………………………….59,000 59,000 AF United Kingdom RAF Fairford EDI: Construct DABS-FEV Storage ………………………………..87,000 87,000 AF United Kingdom RAF Fairford EDI: Munitions Holding Area ……………………………………….19,000 19,000 AF Worldwide Unspec-ified Unspecified Worldwide Locations EDI: Planning & Design Funds …………………………………….48,000 –1,400 46,600 Military Construction, Air Force Total………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..345,800 69,000 414,800 Def-Wide Estonia Unspecified Estonia EDI: SOF Operations Facility ………………………………………..6,100 6,100 Def-Wide Estonia Unspecified Estonia EDI: SOF Training Facility ……………………………………………9,600 9,600 Def-Wide Qatar Al Udeid Trans-Regional Logistics Complex ……………………………….60,000 60,000 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspec-ified Unspecified Worldwide Locations EDI: Planning and Design …………………………………………..7,100 7,100 Def-Wide Worldwide Unspec-ified Various Worldwide Locations EDI: Planning and Design …………………………………………..4,250 4,250 Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….87,050 0 87,050 Total, Military Construction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….921,420 0 921,420

480 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 House Change House 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 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,017,078 198,000 11,215,078 Defense nuclear nonproliferation …………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,862,825 127,000 1,989,825 Naval reactors ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,788,618 0 1,788,618 Federal salaries and expenses ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..422,529 –18,000 404,529 Total, National nuclear security administration………………………………………………………………………………………15,091,050 307,000 15,398,050 Environmental and other defense activities: Defense environmental cleanup ………………………………………………………………………………………………………5,630,217 50,000 5,680,217 Other defense activities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………853,300 0 853,300 Defense nuclear waste disposal ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..30,000 0 30,000 Total, Environmental & other defense activities…………………………………………………………………………………….6,513,517 50,000 6,563,517

481 Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities…………………………………………………………………………………………………………21,604,567 357,000 21,961,567 Total, Discretionary Funding………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21,740,657 357,000 22,097,657 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 B61–12 Life extension program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………794,049 794,049 W76–1 Life extension program ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48,888 48,888 W88 Alt 370 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….304,285 304,285 W80–4 Life extension program ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….654,766 654,766 IW–1 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….53,000 53,000 W76–2 Warhead modification program ……………………………………………………………………………………………………65,000 65,000 Total, Life extension programs and major alterations…………………………………………………………………………………….1,919,988 0 1,919,988 Stockpile systems B61 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..64,547 64,547 W76 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..94,300 94,300 W78 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..81,329 81,329 W80 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..80,204 80,204 B83 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35,082 35,082 W87 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..83,107 83,107 W88 Stockpile systems …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..180,913 180,913 Total, Stockpile systems……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….619,482 0 619,482 Weapons dismantlement and disposition Operations and maintenance ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….56,000 56,000

482 SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) Program FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Production support ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..512,916 –4,000 508,916 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–4,000 ] Research and development support …………………………………………………………………………………………………………38,129 38,129 R&D certification and safety …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..216,582 –2,000 214,582 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–2,000 ] Management, technology, and production ………………………………………………………………………………………………..300,736 –2,000 298,736 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–2,000 ] Total, Stockpile services……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1,068,363 –8,000 1,060,363 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 –8,000 4,658,205 Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) Science Advanced certification ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57,710 57,710 Primary assessment technologies ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………95,057 –2,000 93,057 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–2,000 ] Dynamic materials properties …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………131,000 –3,000 128,000 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–3,000 ] Advanced radiography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………32,544 32,544

483 Secondary assessment technologies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..77,553 77,553 Academic alliances and partnerships ………………………………………………………………………………………………………53,364 53,364 Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments ……………………………………………………………………………………117,632 117,632 Total, Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………564,860 –5,000 559,860 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 6,000 40,000 Program increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[6,000 ] Total, Engineering…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………211,367 6,000 217,367 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield Ignition …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22,434 20,000 42,434 Maintain sustainable levels ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[20,000 ] Support of other stockpile programs ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….17,397 4,000 21,397 Maintain sustainable levels ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[4,000 ] Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ……………………………………………………………………………………51,453 10,000 61,453 Maintain sustainable levels ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[10,000 ] Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………..8,310 8,310 Facility operations and target production …………………………………………………………………………………………………319,333 15,000 334,333 Maintain sustainable levels ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………[15,000 ] Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield…………………………………………………………………………………………..418,927 49,000 467,927 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

484 SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) Program FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Total, Advanced simulation and computing…………………………………………………………………………………………………….703,401 0 703,401 Advanced manufacturing Additive manufacturing ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17,447 17,447 Component manufacturing development ………………………………………………………………………………………………….48,477 48,477 Process technology development ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30,914 30,914 Total, Advanced manufacturing……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..96,838 0 96,838 Total, RDT&E………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,995,393 50,000 2,045,393 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 39,000 404,000 Address high-priority repair needs and preventive maintenance ………………………………………………………………..[39,000 ] Recapitalization: Infrastructure and safety ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….431,631 67,000 498,631 Support high-priority deferred maintenance ……………………………………………………………………………………..[67,000 ] Capability based investments …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………109,057 4,000 113,057 Program increase …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..[4,000 ] Total, Recapitalization…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..540,688 71,000 611,688 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–680, Material Staging Facility, Pantex ……………………………………………………………………………………………0 24,000 24,000 18–D–650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS …………………………………………………………………………………………27,000 27,000 17–D–710, West End Protected Area reduction Project, Y–12 ……………………………………………………………………0 9,000 9,000

485 17–D–640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS …………………………………………………………………………….53,000 53,000 16–D–515, Albuquerque complex project …………………………………………………………………………………………………47,953 47,953 14–D–710, DAF Argus project, NNSS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….0 2,000 2,000 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 35,000 1,126,048 Total, Infrastructure and operations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3,002,736 145,000 3,147,736 Secure transportation asset Operations and equipment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..176,617 176,617 Program direction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….102,022 102,022 Total, Secure transportation asset………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..278,639 0 278,639 Defense nuclear security Operations and maintenance ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….690,638 11,000 701,638 Physical security infrastructure recapitalization and CSTART ……………………………………………………………………..[11,000 ] Total, Defense nuclear security…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….690,638 11,000 701,638 Information technology and cybersecurity …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………221,175 221,175 Legacy contractor pensions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….162,292 162,292 Total, Weapons Activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11,017,078 198,000 11,215,078 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

486 SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) Program FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 12,000 468,095 Acceleration of low-yield detection experiments ………………………………………………………………………………………..[6,000 ] Future nuclear proliferation challenges, including 3D printing …………………………………………………………………..[6,000 ] Nonproliferation Construction: 18–D–150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project ……………………………………………………………………………………..59,000 59,000 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ……………………………………………………………………..220,000 115,000 335,000 Total, Nonproliferation construction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………279,000 115,000 394,000 Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs…………………………………………………………………………………………………1,534,000 127,000 1,661,000 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………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,862,825 127,000 1,989,825 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

487 Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………525,764 525,764 Construction: 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 –18,000 404,529 Program decrease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….[–18,000 ] Total, Office Of The Administrator…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………422,529 –18,000 404,529 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 50,000 612,473 Accelerated remediation of 300–296 waste site ……………………………………………………..[50,000 ] 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 50,000 708,171 Office of River Protection: Waste Treatment Immobilization Plant Commissioning ……………………………………………………………………………………..15,000 15,000

488 SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) Program FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 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

489 OR-0041—D&D – Y–12 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30,214 30,214 OR-0042—D&D -ORNL …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..60,007 60,007 Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………90,221 0 90,221 U233 Disposition Program ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45,000 45,000 OR cleanup and waste disposition OR cleanup and disposition ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………67,000 67,000 Construction: 17–D–401 On-site waste disposal facility ……………………………………………………………………………………….5,000 5,000 14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ……………………………………………………………………………11,274 11,274 Total, Construction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16,274 0 16,274 Total, OR cleanup and waste disposition……………………………………………………………………………………………………….83,274 0 83,274 OR community & regulatory support ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4,711 4,711 OR technology development and deployment ……………………………………………………………………………………………………3,000 3,000 Total, Oak Ridge Reservation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..226,206 0 226,206 Savannah River Sites: Nuclear Material Management ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..351,331 351,331 Environmental Cleanup Environmental Cleanup ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….166,105 166,105 Construction: 18–D–402, Emergency Operations Center ………………………………………………………………………………………..1,259 1,259 Total, Environmental Cleanup………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..167,364 0 167,364 SR community and regulatory support …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4,749 4,749 Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 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 41,24

490 SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) Program FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized 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 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

491 Technology development …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25,000 25,000 HQEF-0040—Excess Facilities ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..150,000 150,000 Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5,630,217 50,000 5,680,217 Other Defense Activities Environment, health, safety and security Environment, health, safety and security …………………………………………………………………………………………………………135,194 135,194 Program direction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….70,653 70,653 Total, Environment, Health, safety and security……………………………………………………………………………………………………..205,847 0 205,847 Independent enterprise assessments Independent enterprise assessments ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24,068 24,068 Program direction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52,702 52,702 Total, Independent enterprise assessments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………76,770 0 76,770 Specialized security activities …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………254,378 254,378 Office of Legacy Management Legacy management ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………140,575 140,575 Program direction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18,302 18,302 Total, Office of Legacy Management……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..158,877 0 158,877 Defense related administrative support Chief financial officer ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………48,484 48,484 Chief information officer ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..96,793 96,793 Project management oversight and Assessments ……………………………………………………………………………………………..8,412 8,412 Total, Defense related administrative support………………………………………………………………………………………………………..153,689 0 153,689 Office of hearings and appeals ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5,739 5,739 Subtotal, Other defense activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….855,300 0 855,300 Rescission of prior year balances (OHA) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….–2,000 –2,000 Total, Other Defense Activities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………853,300 0 853,30

492 SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars) Program FY 2019 Request House Change House Authorized Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Yucca mountain and interim storage ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………30,000 30,000 Total, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….30,000 0 30,000

493 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspond-ence set out below: MARCH9, 2018. Hon. PAULD. RYAN, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed leg-islation, titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’’, which the Department of Defense requests be enacted during the second session of the 115th Congress. The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, ROBERTR. HOOD. Enclosure: As Stated. MARCH16, 2018. Hon. PAULD. RYAN, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted dur-ing the second session of the 115th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. The Department submits these proposals as a follow-on to the ear-lier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’’. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, ROBERTR. HOOD. Enclosure: As Stated.

494 MARCH26, 2018. Hon. PAULD. RYAN, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted dur-ing the second session of the 115th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. The Department submits these proposals as a follow-on to the ear-lier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’’. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, ROBERTR. HOOD. Enclosure: As Stated. APRIL3, 2018. Hon. PAULD. RYAN, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted dur-ing the second session of the 115th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. The Department submits these proposals as a follow-on to the ear-lier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’’. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, ROBERTR. HOOD. Enclosure: As Stated. APRIL13, 2018. Hon. PAULD. RYAN, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. SPEAKER: Enclosed please find additional legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests be enacted dur-VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00524 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

495 ing the second session of the 115th Congress. The purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. The Department submits these proposals as a follow-on to the ear-lier transmittal of our request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019’’. The Department is currently working with the Administration on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the coming weeks. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration and the consideration of Congress. Sincerely, ROBERTR. HOOD. Enclosure: As Stated. COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THEBUDGET, Washington, DC, May 10, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I am writing regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. This legislation contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. However, in order to expedite floor con-sideration of this important legislation, the Committee waives con-sideration of the bill. The Committee on the Budget takes this action only with the un-derstanding that the Committee’s jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. I also ask that the Committee on the Budget be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address any remaining issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 5515 and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during House Floor consideration. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, STEVEWOMACK, Chairman.

496 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. STEVEWOMACK, Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by fore-going a sequential referral, the Committee on the Budget is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be in-cluded in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONENERGY ANDCOMMERCE, Washington, DC, May 11, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I write in regard to H.R. 5515, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.’’ Al-though the Committee on Energy and Commerce has jurisdictional interests in the bill, I wanted to notify you that the will forgo ac-tion on the bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. This is done with the understanding that the Committee on En-ergy and Commerce’s jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 5515 and requests your support when such a request is made. I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 5515 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record dur-ing consideration of the bill on the House floor. Sincerely, GREGWALDEN, Chairman.

497 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. GREGWALDEN, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid ju-risdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legisla-tion, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on En-ergy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this ex-change of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONFINANCIALSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. There are certain provisions of H.R. 5515 which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. In the interest of permitting your committee to have the House expeditiously consider H.R. 5515, I am writing to waive this Com-mittee’s right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Committee on Finan-cial Services does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in H.R. 5515 which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name mem-bers of the Committee on Financial Services to any conference com-mittee which is named to consider such provisions. Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 5515 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these important matters. Sincerely, JEBHENSARLING, Chairman.

98 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. JEBHENSARLING, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has valid juris-dictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a refer-ral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial Services is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONFOREIGNAFFAIRS, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: I write to confirm our mutual under-standing regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which contains substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually agreeable text on numerous matters prior to your markup. Based on that cooperation and our associated understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the bill text approved at your Committee markup. This decision in no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of the Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any subsequent amendments, or similar legislation. I request your support for the appointment of House Foreign Affairs con-ferees during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. Finally, I respectfully request that you include this letter and your response in your committee report on the bill and in the Con-gressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5515 on the House floor. Sincerely, EDWARDR. ROYCE, Chairman.

499 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. EDWARDR. ROYCE, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid jurisdic-tional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Foreign Af-fairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of let-ters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONHOMELANDSECURITY, Washington, DC, May 10, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. THORNBERRY: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. There are certain provisions in this legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expedi-tiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee’s right to sequential referral. However, I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the Committee on Homeland Security does not waive any future ju-risdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions. Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 5515 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you and your staff have worked regarding this matter and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, MICHAELT. MCCAUL, Chairman.

500 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. MICHAELT. MCCAUL, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Homeland Security has valid juris-dictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a refer-ral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Home-land Security is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THEJUDICIARY, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I write with respect to H.R. 5515, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.’’ As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions within H.R. 5515 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I forego any further consideration of this bill so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual un-derstanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5515 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter con-tained in this or similar legislation and that our committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar legisla-tion moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House- Senate conference involving this or similar legislation and asks that you support any such request. I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this un-derstanding with respect to H.R. 5515 and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included your com-mittee report and in the Congressional Record during floor consid-eration of H.R. 5515. Sincerely, BOBGOODLATTE, Chairman.

501 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. BOBGOODLATTE, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdic-tional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONNATURALRESOURCES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. THORNBERRY: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Re-sources. In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expedi-tiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee’s right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Com-mittee on Natural Resources does not waive any future jurisdic-tional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference committee which is named to consider such provisions. Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 5515 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others be-tween our respective committees. Sincerely, ROBBISHOP, Chairman.

502 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. ROBBISHOP, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid juris-dictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a refer-ral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONOVERSIGHT ANDGOVERNMENTREFORM, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. HON. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: I write concerning H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. This bill contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. As a result of your having consulted with me concerning the provisions of the bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to forgo consideration of the bill, so the bill may proceed expeditiously to the House floor. The Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5515 we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar leg-islation, and we will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so we may address any re-maining issues within our Rule X jurisdiction. Further, I request your support for the appointment of conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any House-Senate conference on this or related legislation. Finally, I would appreciate a response confirming this under-standing and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the bill report filed by the Committee on Armed Services, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof. Sincerely, TREYGOWDY, Chairman.

503 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. TREYGOWDY, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this impor-tant legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdic-tion. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the com-mittee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONSCIENCE, SPACE, ANDTECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. THORNBERRY: I am writing to you concerning the bill H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed expedi-tiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I am willing to waive this committee’s right to sequential referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill the Com-mittee on Science, Space, and Technology does not waive any fu-ture jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name members of this committee to any con-ference committee which is named to consider such provisions. Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 5515 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and others be-tween our respective committees. Sincerely, LAMARSMITH, Chairman.

504 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. LAMARSMITH, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to re-quest a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Congres-sional Record. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONSMALLBUSINESS, Washington, DC, May 10, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I write to confirm our mutual un-derstanding regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2019. This legislation contains subject mat-ter within the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives’ Com-mittee on Small Business. However, in order to expedite floor con-sideration of this important legislation, the Committee waives con-sideration of the bill. The House of Representatives’ Committee on Small Business takes this action only with the understanding that the committee’s jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consider-ation of H.R. 5515 on the House Floor. Thank you for you’re the cooperative spirit in which you have worked on these issues and others between our respective committees. Sincerely, STEVECHABOT, Chairman.

505 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. STEVECHABOT, Chairman, Committee on Small Business, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid jurisdic-tional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Small Busi-ness is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of let-ters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONTRANSPORTATION ANDINFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. THORNBERRY: I am writing to you concerning the juris-dictional interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infra-structure in matters being considered in H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5515 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my deci-sion to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise af-fects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and In-frastructure, and that a copy of this letter and your response ac-knowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Com-mittee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during con-sideration of this bill by the House. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, BILLSHUSTER, Chairman.

506 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. BILLSHUSTER, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this impor-tant legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONVETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, May 9, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I write to confirm our mutual un-derstanding regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2019. This legislation contains subject mat-ter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. However, in order to expedite floor consideration of this important legislation, the committee waives consideration of the bill. The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs takes this action only with the understanding that the committee’s jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Committee Report and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5515 on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, DAVIDP. ROE, M.D., Chairman.

507 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. DAVIDP. ROE, M.D., Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has valid jurisdic-tional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Veterans’ Af-fairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of let-ters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONWAYS ANDMEANS, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARCHAIRMANTHORNBERRY: I am writing with respect to the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Ways and Means in matters being considered in H.R. 5515, the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 5515 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I agree to waive formal consideration of this bill so that it may move expeditiously to the floor. The Committee on Ways and Means takes this action with the mutual under-standing that we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and the Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues that fall within our jurisdiction. The Committee also re-serves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for such request. Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter con-firming this understanding, and would ask that a copy of our ex-change of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 5515. Sincerely, KEVINBRADY, Chairman.

508 HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ONARMEDSERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2018. Hon. KEVINBRADY, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid jurisdic-tional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of let-ters will be included in the committee report on the bill. Sincerely, WILLIAMM. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Chairman. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Con-gressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE MAY14, 2018. Hon. MACTHORNBERRYChairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEARMR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has com-pleted a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Armed Services on May 10, 2018. This preliminary estimate is based on the Committee Print 115–70 of H.R. 5515 that was posted to the website of the House Committee on Rules on May 11, 2018. CBO’s complete cost estimate for H.R. 5515, including discretionary costs, will be provided shortly. Several provisions of the legislation would have insignificant ef-fects (some positive; some negative) on direct spending. Those budgetary changes would result primarily from provisions that would: •Authorize the Department of Defense to accept and spend con-tributions for specific purposes, •Increase eligibility for military retirement, and •Change the timing of small amounts of outlays from appropria-tions that are currently available.

509 On a preliminary basis, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5515 would affect net direct spending by less than $500,000 over the 2019–2028 period. The bill also would increase certain civil and criminal fines and would impose sanctions on entities that engage in certain trans-actions with Russia. Those fines and penalties, which are classified as revenues, would total less than $500,000 over the next 10 years, CBO estimates. Because enacting the bill would affect direct spend-ing and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman, who can be reached at 226–2840. Sincerely, KEITHHALL, Director. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344): (1) this legislation does not provide budget authority subject to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of Public Law 93– 344; (2) the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO’s projection of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for fiscal year 2019 and for the en-suing 5 fiscal years; and (3) the CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget authority for assistance to state and local governments by this measure at the time that this report was filed. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget Office Esti-mate included in this report satisfies the requirement for the com-mittee to include an estimate by the committee of the costs in-curred in carrying out this bill. ADVISORY OF EARMARKS The committee finds that H.R. 5515, the National Defense Au-thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, as reported, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00539 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

510 to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The findings are reflected in the body of this report. GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of H.R. 5515 is to maintain our national defense, to prepare the warfighter for current and future threats, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Our country continues to face national security challenges: the Russian Federation continues its overt and covert attempts to un-dermine democratic institutions and the international rules-based order; the People’s Republic of China is pursuing a foreign policy that is increasingly aggressive toward U.S. interests; the Islamic Republic of Iran is seeking to destabilize areas in the Middle East; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea maintains a nuclear pro-gram that undermines peace and security in East Asia; and ter-rorist groups continue to threaten U.S. citizens at home and abroad. This legislation is a continuation of the efforts of the Committee on Armed Services to provide for the common defense by respond-ing to these, and other, national security challenges. The bill pro-vides $617.1 billion to support core Department of Defense require-ments, a number consistent with the President’s Budget Request and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–123). It also includes an additional $69.0 billion of Overseas Contingency Operations, also matching the request. This includes money to fully fund the 2.6 percent pay raise for troops, to expand funding for maintenance and readiness, and to deter America’s adversaries. This bill also seeks to continue the committee’s focus on reform to create savings by cutting unnecessary waste. This legislation in-cludes numerous reforms to streamline the Department of Defense. The bill reforms the definition of commercial item to simplify Gov-ernment purchasing, requires the Department to examine its bu-reaucracy to identify redundant activities for potential savings, and begins a process of updating acquisition statutes to reduce unneces-sary confusion and red tape. This bill continues the committee’s work to ensure the military is both adequately resourced and prepared to maintain our na-tional defense, and thereby fulfills the committee’s duties under Ar-ticle I, Section 8, of the Constitution. STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation con-tains no Federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal intergovernmental mandates. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT Consistent with the requirements of section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee finds that the functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in the bill are not cur-rently being nor could they be performed by one or more agencies, VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00540 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

511 an advisory committee already in existence or by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee. APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH The committee finds that this legislation does not relate to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Con-gressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS No provision of H.R. 5515 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Fed-eral program, a program that was included in any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program iden-tified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS The committee estimates that H.R. 5515 requires three instances of directed rule makings. They are contained in the following provi-sions: (1) section 582 (2) section 830; and (3) section 1610. COMMITTEE VOTES In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with respect to the committee’s consideration of H.R. 5515. The record of these votes is contained in the following pages. The committee ordered H.R. 5515 to be reported to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60–1, a quorum being present.

512 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 1H.R. 5515On Hanabusa Log 301—Clarifies command and control relation-ship as it relates to surface force readiness. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 26 34 0

513 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 2H.R. 5515On Russell Log 323—Treatment of leases of non-excess property entered into with insured depository institutions. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 33 28 0

514 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 3H.R. 5515On Russell Log 328—Transfer or possession of defense items for national defense purposes. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 36 24 0

515 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 4H.R. 5515On O’Halleran Log 282—Requires the Secretary of Defense to submit reports, on a quarterly basis, to HASC detailing direct and indirect costs to DOD in support of travel by senior executive offi-cials on military aircraft. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 30 31 0

516 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 5H.R. 5515On Speier Log 054r2—Randomizes selection of members for mili-tary courts-martial panels allowing for rank and theater of oper-ations considerations. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 26 35 0

517 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 6H.R. 5515On Veasey Log 080r1—Directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-vide a report on the feasibility of tracking the number of veterans who have served in the Armed Forces, as well as service member dependents who have been deported from the U.S. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 29 32 0

518 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 7H.R. 5515On Gallego Log 336r1—Permit granting of reenlistment waivers to individuals who attest to using marijuana. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 29 32 0

519 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 8H.R. 5515On Rogers Log 028—Expresses Congress’ support for and en-dorsement of the Administration’s recent Nuclear Posture Review. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 33 28 0

520 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 9H.R. 5515On Larsen Log 070—Provides CJCS with waiver authority of the prohibitions related to ICBMs in section 1645 of the bill. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 28 33 0

521 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 10H.R. 5515On Langevin Log 420—Perfecting Amendment to the Substitute Amendment offered by Mr. Byrne (Log 414). Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 28 33 0

522 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 11H.R. 5515On Gallego Log 406—Strikes section 1109. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 27 33 0

523 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 12H.R. 5515On Bishop Log 221r2—Provision does not allow for listing of the Greater Sage Grouse, Lesser Prairie Chicken and American Bury-ing Beetle under ESA for a 10-year period. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 33 28 0

524 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 13H.R. 5515On Brown Log 053r3—Strikes subsection (a), section 913, and re-quires a study on the feasibility and advisability of the transfer of DISA services and functions, which addresses the impact on jobs. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 29 32 0

525 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 14H.R. 5515On Knight Log 371—Strikes subsection (e) of section 913 regard-ing TRMC. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 33 28 0

526 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 15H.R. 5515On Khanna Log 310r1—Limits funds for U.S. refueling of non- U.S. military aircraft for missions against the Houthis in Yemen. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 19 42 0

527 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 16H.R. 5515On Brown Log 025r1—Requires a report to Congress containing a comprehensive strategy for any National Guard deployments to the southern land border. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 28 33

528 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 17H.R. 5515On Smith Log 149—Strikes authorizing language and funding for the low-yield D5 missile warhead. Redirects funding ($65.0M) to Army readiness. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 28 33 0

529 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 18H.R. 5515On Davis Log 127—Reduces LRSO and GBSD funding to Presi-dent’s Budget levels and uses additional funds for aviation readi-ness. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 28 33 0

530 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICESROLL CALL VOTE NO. 19H.R. 5515On the motion by Mr. Wilson to report the bill H.R. 5515 as amended favorably to the House, with a recommendation that it do pass. Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present Mr. Thornberry ………x Mr. Smith …………x Mr. Jones ……………..Mr. Brady …………x Mr. Wilson ……………x Mrs. Davis ………..x Mr. LoBiondo ………..x Mr. Langevin …….x Mr. Bishop ……………x Mr. Larsen ………..x Mr. Turner …………….x Mr. Cooper ……….x Mr. Rogers ……………x Ms. Bordallo ……..x Mr. Shuster …………..x Mr. Courtney …….x Mr. Conaway …………x Ms. Tsongas ……..x Mr. Lamborn …………x Mr. Garamendi ….x Mr. Wittman …………x Ms. Speier ………..x Mr. Hunter ……………x Mr. Veasey ……….x Mr. Coffman …………x Ms. Gabbard …….x Mrs. Hartzler …………x Mr. O’Rourke …….x Mr. Scott ………………x Mr. Norcross ……..x Mr. Brooks ……………x Mr. Gallego ………x Mr. Cook ………………x Mr. Moulton ………x Dr. Wenstrup ………..x Ms. Hanabusa …..x Mr. Byrne ……………..x Ms. Shea-Porter ..x Mr. Graves ……………x Ms. Rosen ………..x Ms. Stefanik …………x Mr. McEachin ……x Ms. McSally ………….x Mr. Carbajal ……..x Mr. Knight ……………x Mr. Brown ………..x Mr. Russell …………..x Mrs. Murphy ……..x Dr. DesJarlais ……….x Mr. Khanna ………x Dr. Abraham …………x Mr. O’Halleran …..x Mr. Kelly ………………x Mr. Suozzi ………..x Mr. Gallagher ……….x Mr. Panetta ………x Mr. Gaetz ……………..x Mr. Bacon …………….x Mr. Banks …………….x Ms. Cheney …………..x Mr. Hice ……………….x Mr. Mitchell ………….x Roll Call Vote Total: 60 1 0 CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED The committee has taken steps to make available the analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by clause 3(e)

531 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as soon as possible.

(532) ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. LARSEN The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) addresses many of the threats the nation faces in a clear and constructive manner. I am pleased that many of my proposals were included in the bill, including $50 million in budget authority for DoD Supplemental Impact Aid, a pilot program intended to ad-dress combat-related infertility, and accelerating research into quieter jet engines. I will work with Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith to ensure these and other priorities re-main in the final text of the legislation. However, there is one area where I believe the FY 19 NDAA is particularly deficient, and I intend to work with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to address these concerns before this bill becomes law. In its current form, the FY 19 NDAA authorizes funding for new low-yield nuclear weapons proposed by the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). But the NPR fails to make a con-vincing case for the utility of these weapons, and fails to address legitimate concerns about the consequences of fielding these new nuclear capabilities. The NPR recommends fielding of two new low-yield nuclear weapons: a version of the existing D5 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) and a nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missile (SLCM). The FY 2019 NDAA authorizes $65 million for develop-ment of the low-yield D5. While supporters of this program have been emphatic that these new weapons will not lower the nuclear threshold, the arguments for their development advanced in the NPR and in this committee have contradicted this assertion. The NPR envisions a scenario where the Russians use a low-yield weapon because they believe this action would not be met with a nuclear response because the U.S. lacks a tailored deterrent and the President would be unwill-ing to use a strategic nuclear weapon. With the development of new low-yield weapons, the NPR asserts, the U.S. could now use low yield weapons to deter low yield weapons, and America would no longer be self-deterred. This is dangerous thinking. First, the U.S. already possesses low-yield nuclear weapons, in-cluding the variable yield B–61. If these weapons are not effective deterrents, this Committee should examine why before exploring new capabilities. Second, the NPR implies a scenario where both parties respond to a nuclear detonation by taking the time to deter-mine the size and yield of the weapon employed before deciding whether and how to respond. In reality, escalation would be dif-ficult, if not impossible to avoid. And finally, this concept of oper-ations employs the sub-based leg of the triad, the most survivable leg, in the opening stages of a nuclear conflict, putting submarines at risk conducting a mission they were not intended for.

533 Additionally, the Committee considered this legislation prior to the release of the forthcoming Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR). Based on comments from the President and other mem-bers of the administration, I believe it is reasonable to anticipate a significant change to the role of missile defense in national secu-rity. Missile defense and the nuclear deterrent both play a pivotal role in strategic stability. I am concerned that too often this committee treats these as two separate issues. America’s adversaries consider both our missile defense and strategic deterrent when planning. This committee should as well. When the BMDR is released, it is my hope that this committee will evaluate the report not only discretely, but based on the com-bined effect on strategic stability of both the BMDR and NPR. I commend Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership on this legislation and this committee, and look forward to working with them further on the FY 19 NDAA. RICKLARSEN.

(534) CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI’S ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 5515, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 I congratulate Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith on the passage of the committee mark for the 58th National Defense Authorization Act. I also appreciate the efforts of the House Armed Services Committee to prepare a committee mark that aims to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the means to protect our nation and advance American interests. How-ever, there are several areas of concern that I have with this bill, and I look forward to our continued work to improve this critically important legislation. One of the most concerning elements of this bill is the endorse-ment of the Trump Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). In addition to the planned modernization of our current force structure, the NPR proposes the development of supplemental capabilities, namely a low-yield warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and a sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM). Not only does this bill repeal a 15-year ban on developing and producing low-yield nuclear warheads absent Congressional authorization, but it also authorizes $65 million for the develop-ment of such. Fielding low-yield warheads on SLBMs will dramati-cally alter the way in which we utilize our nuclear submarine force, greatly increasing the risk of miscalculation and further fueling a dangerous arms race. We must thoughtfully consider the potential impact these weapons will have on strategic stability. Furthermore, we’re already on track to spend $1.2 trillion over the next thirty years to operate, maintain, and recapitalize our nu-clear arsenal, and that figure does not include the ‘‘supplemental capabilities’’ described in the recent NPR. I remain deeply con-cerned that excessive nuclear weapons spending will put significant pressure on the rest of the procurement budget in the middle of next decade when other areas of our national defense will also re-quire recapitalization. Lastly, while I am pleased that there are already several provi-sions in the bill that promote U.S. shipbuilding, I believe this bill could go much further. It is in the national security interests of the U.S. to maintain our domestic manufacturing base. Buy America requirements ensure we have a domestic, reliable source of critical equipment, and I will continue working with my colleagues to strengthen these key requirements. As the process continues, I look forward to working on these im-portant issues with my colleagues on the Armed Services Com-mittee. JOHNGARAMENDI.

(535) DISSENTING VIEWS Section 314: To prohibit the Greater Sage Grouse and Lesser Prairie Chicken from being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for a period of 10 years and to reverse a 1989 determina-tion of endangered status for the American Burying Beetle, and for other purposes. Section 314 of the National Defense Authorization Act as re-ported out of the House Armed Services Committee prohibits the Greater Sage Grouse and Lesser Prairie Chicken from being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for a period of 10 years, reverses a 1989 determination of endangered status for the Amer-ican Burying Beetle, and would further exempt this provision from judicial review. ESA listing decisions should be made with the best-available- science and not by a Congressional mandate. Sections 314 under-mine science-based decision-making and State and Federal coopera-tive efforts to protect imperiled species. Furthermore, Section 314 set a terrible precedent for the management of species in need of conservation by having Congress micromanage specific species. Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the House Natural Resources Committee—not the House Armed Serv-ices Committee—has jurisdiction over wildlife and conservation, so it is only appropriate that any proposed legislative changes per-taining to the ESA, wildlife, or conservation go through the appro-priate authorizing committee. The language should be struck from the bill as it is non-germane. The Department of Defense has stated that it already has sufficient statutory authorities to protect the interest of the Department and its training and readiness activities. We should not jeopardize the progress of this bill with unnecessary environmental riders. NIKITSONGAS. A. DONALDMCEACHIN. JACKIESPEIER. ANTHONYG. BROWN.

(536) DISSENTING VIEWS OF CONGRESSWOMAN COLLEEN HANABUSA ON SECTION 903 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 I congratulate Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith on the passage of the committee mark for the 57th National Defense Authorization Act. However, I dissent with this bill’s change in the command and control in the most challenging area, the Indo-Asia-Pacific. Let there be no question, we are all saddened and distressed by the deaths of our sailors who were on the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John McCain. This resulted with the Comprehensive Review of Recent Surface Force Incidents (CR) by Admiral Philip S. David-son for the Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Davidson has been recently confirmed as the new Commander of Pacific Command (PACOM). The Secretary of the Navy subsequently tasked Michael Bayer and Admiral Roughead (Ret. and former CNO) with a Stra-tegic Readiness Review (SRR) of tragic incidents involving the 7th Fleet. The SRR independently examined the findings of the CR and concurred in most part with one exception being the establishment of ‘‘a single Echelon II’’ to determine the readiness of the force structure. The SRR stated clearly that it does not concur with the rec-ommendation to ‘‘[e]stablish a single Echelon II higher head-quarters responsible for the readiness generation of all Navy forces.’’ It instead made recommendations that would ‘‘meet the same objective, while retaining separate fleet responsibilities and authorities for managing readiness in the east and west coast fleets.’’ It is important to note that in April of 2018 as part of his con-firmation hearing, Admiral Davidson states that ‘‘[he] would not support any changes to command and control of Naval Forces in the Pacific that would limit the speed, flexibility, and agility of a response or place into question U.S. resolve and commitment to the Indo-Pacific.’’ The amendment I offered identified as ‘‘Hanabusa 301’’ did ex-actly what the SRR recommended. The amendment provided that ‘‘the Secretary of the Navy may not make available for tasking by an operational commander any vessel, including any forward de-ployed naval vessel, until the Commander of Surface Forces Atlan-tic submits to the Commander of the United States Fleet Forces Command or the Commander of Surface Forces Pacific submits to the Commander of the United States Pacific Fleet, as appropriate based on the region to which such vessel is proposed to be tasked, certification that such surface vessel in properly manned, trained, and equipped.’’ In the present geopolitical climate that the United States of America and its military finds itself in, no area presents the threats to our democracy as the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. The VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00566 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

537 PACOM AOR is just about fifty-five percent of this earth’s surface. The actions of North Korea, China, and Russia have caused us all to have heightened concerns. The initial language, which gave to the Asia-Pacific Region its command and control structure was called the ‘‘Inouye Amend-ment’’ and has existed since May of 2005. There is no one who is as respected or decorated as Senator Daniel K. Inouye. He clearly understood what was needed for the U.S. to meet the challenges that the PACOM AOR would present. My amendment brings into line the need for the speed, flexibility and agility that this region requires, while also addressing command and control structure im-provements recommended by the CR and SRR—a position clearly advocated by the new PACOM Commander. I look forward to work-ing with this committee to ensure that the necessary tools and command and control structure is in place to ensure the success of the new PACOM Commander in the largest AOR of this military. COLLEENHANABUSA.

(538) DISSENTING VIEWS—SECTION 312 OF H.R. 5515: NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 Section 312 of the National Defense Authorization Act would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to require the Depart-ment of Defense to obtain authorizations from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) every ten years, instead of the current five-year requirement, for activities that can harm marine mam-mals. Section 312 is not required for military readiness and national security, yet it will weaken essential protections for whales, dol-phins, and other marine mammals. Enacted 45 years ago with strong bipartisan support, the MMPA protects marine mammals from ‘‘take,’’ meaning human activities that ‘‘hunt, harass, capture, or kill’’ these iconic species of ocean wildlife. The law applies in U.S. waters and to U.S. citizens and conveyances on the high seas. Due to the protections provided by this bedrock conservation statute, no marine mammals in U.S. waters have subsequently gone extinct, and some species that once suffered severe declines have increased in numbers. The Department of Defense is required under the MMPA to ob-tain authorizations from the NMFS every five years for activities that can harm marine mammals, most notably the Navy’s use of sonar and underwater explosives for training and military readi-ness purposes. The purpose of these authorizations is to ensure that the activities conducted by the Navy do not undermine the health of marine mammal populations, and to establish mitigation measures to achieve the ‘‘least practicable adverse impact’’ on the affected species. The law requires frequent reviews because marine mammals— especially whales, dolphins, and porpoises, which live exclusively in the ocean—are difficult to study and monitor in the wild. These animals live for decades, reproduce slowly, and often range over great distances. A 2007 study by NMFS biologists found that sci-entists would be unlikely to detect precipitous declines in most of the country’s marine mammal populations at current levels of mon-itoring. Section 312 would extend the authorization period for Depart-ment of Defense activities from five years to 10 years under the MMPA, curtailing critical oversight of the Navy’s impacts, which are already considerable. During its most recent round of environ-mental reviews, the Navy has estimated that over five years it would kill more than 250 whales and other marine mammals, cause permanent injury to another 3,000, and disrupt foraging and other vital behaviors more than 30 million times. The Navy has conducted ground-breaking research on marine mammals and acoustics in recent years to comply with the MMPA. This research has helped ensure that the best-available-science is VerDate Sep 11 2014 11:34 May 16, 2018 Jkt 030053 PO 00000 Frm 00568 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR676.XXX HR676

539 used to review Navy activities and improve mitigation of harm to marine mammals. These research activities and mitigation meas-ures should be increased and strengthened, rather than weakened or removed. The MMPA already contains ample accommodations for national security. It was amended in 2003 to limit mitigation of military readiness activities to what is ‘‘practicable,’’ taking into account personnel safety, practicability of implementation, and effects on military readiness. The Navy’s requests for authorization to harm marine mammals have never been rejected. Furthermore, the MMPA provides a two-year exemption from compliance that the Secretary of Defense can invoke, at his discretion, for national se-curity purposes, and can renew for subsequent two-year intervals as needed. We are, as you know, deeply committed to our nation’s national security. We also believe it is necessary and achievable to protect our natural heritage, and therefore we oppose the inclusion of Sec-tion 312 in the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act. JIMMYPANETTA. A. DONALDMCEACHIN. JACKIESPEIER. ANTHONYG. BROWN. COLLEENHANABUSA. THOMASR. SUOZZI. RUBENGALLEGO.

(II) COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ONEHUNDREDFIFTEENTHCONGRESSWILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina JOE WILSON, South Carolina FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey ROB BISHOP, Utah MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio MIKE ROGERS, Alabama BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia DUNCAN HUNTER, California MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia MO BROOKS, Alabama PAUL COOK, California BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona STEPHEN KNIGHT, California STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana TRENT KELLY, Mississippi MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin MATT GAETZ, Florida DON BACON, Nebraska JIM BANKS, Indiana LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming JODY B. HICE, Georgia PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan ADAM SMITH, Washington ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island RICK LARSEN, Washington JIM COOPER, Tennessee MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts JOHN GARAMENDI, California JACKIE SPEIER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii BETO O’ROURKE, Texas DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii CAROL SHEA–PORTER, New Hampshire JACKY ROSEN, Nevada A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida RO KHANNA, California TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York JIMMY PANETTA, California JENSTEWART, Staff Director