Senate Report 116-48 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

[Senate Report 116-48]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 114

116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 116-48

_______________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

R E P O R T

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1790]

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

----------

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

June 11, 2019.--Ordered to be printed

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

Calendar No. 114

116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 116-48
_______________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

R E P O R T

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1790]

__________

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

June 11, 2019.--Ordered to be printed

_________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36-532 WASHINGTON : 2019

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi JACK REED, Rhode Island
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina TIM KAINE, Virginia
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
RICK SCOTT, Florida JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri DOUG JONES, Alabama
John Bonsell, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director

(II)

C O N T E N T S

----------
REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 1790
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee Overview............................................... 2
Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4)........................... 5
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority
Implication.................................................... 5
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 7
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 7
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 7
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 7
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 7
Sense of Senate on Army's approach to capability drops 1
and 2 of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army
program (sec. 111)..................................... 7
Authority of the Secretary of the Army to waive certain
limitations related to Distributed Common Ground
System-Army Increment 1 (sec. 112)..................... 7
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 7
Modification of prohibition on availability of funds for
Navy port waterborne security barriers (sec. 121)...... 7
Capabilities based assessment for naval vessels that
carry fixed-wing aircraft (sec. 122)................... 8
Ford-class aircraft carrier cost limitation baselines
(sec. 123)............................................. 8
Design and construction of amphibious transport dock
designated LPD-31 (sec. 124)........................... 9
LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program (sec.
125)................................................... 9
Limitation on availability of funds for the Littoral
Combat Ship (sec. 126)................................. 9
Limitation on the next new class of Navy large surface
combatants (sec. 127).................................. 10
Refueling and complex overhauls of the U.S.S. John C.
Stennis and U.S.S. Harry S. Truman (sec. 128).......... 10
Report on carrier wing composition (sec. 129)............ 11
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 12
Requirement to align Air Force fighter force structure
with National Defense Strategy and reports (sec. 141).. 12
Requirement to establish the use of an Agile DevOps
software development solution as an alternative for
Joint Strike Fighter Autonomic Logistics Information
System (sec. 142)...................................... 12
Report on feasibility of multiyear contract for
procurement of JASSM-ER missiles (sec. 143)............ 12
Air Force aggressor squadron modernization (sec. 144).... 13
Air Force plan for the Combat Rescue Helicopter fielding
(sec. 145)............................................. 13
Military type certification for AT-6 and A-29 light
attack experimentation aircraft (sec. 146)............. 13
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 13
Limitation on availability of funds for communication
systems lacking certain resiliency features (sec. 151). 13
F-35 sustainment cost (sec. 152)......................... 13
Economic order quantity contracting authority for F-35
Joint Strike Fighter program (sec. 153)................ 14
Repeal of tactical unmanned vehicle common data link
requirement (sec. 154)................................. 14
Budget Items................................................. 14
Army..................................................... 14
Utility fixed wing aircraft.......................... 14
AH-64 Apache Block IIIB New Build.................... 14
UH-60M Blackhawk..................................... 15
UH-60V Conversion.................................... 15
Interim Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment
2.................................................. 15
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army procurement. 16
Stryker lethality.................................... 16
Bradley program...................................... 16
Abrams upgrade program............................... 16
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle......................... 17
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle......................... 17
Q53 extended range radar............................. 17
Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army............ 18
C4I life-cycle replacement at Joint Intelligence
Operations Center Europe Analytic Center........... 18
Army contract writing system......................... 18
Robotics and Applique Systems........................ 18
NAVY..................................................... 18
F-35C................................................ 18
F-35B................................................ 19
F-5 aircraft procurement............................. 19
F-35B Spares......................................... 19
F-35C Spares......................................... 19
F-35B Engine......................................... 20
Tomahawk............................................. 20
LCS Over-the-Horizon missile......................... 20
MK-48 torpedo........................................ 20
Columbia-class submarine advance procurement......... 21
Carrier replacement program.......................... 21
Virginia-class submarine program..................... 21
Virginia-class submarine advance procurement......... 22
Refueling and complex overhauls of aircraft carriers. 22
Refueling and complex overhaul advance procurement... 23
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers....................... 23
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement.... 23
LPD-class amphibious transport ship.................. 23
LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance
procurement........................................ 24
LHA replacement amphibious assault ship.............. 24
Outfitting........................................... 24
Service craft........................................ 25
Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF 14) conversion... 25
Ship to shore connector advance procurement.......... 25
Hull, mechanical, and electrical upgrades for Arleigh
Burke-class destroyers............................. 25
Expeditionary mine countermeasures................... 26
Littoral Combat Ship mine countermeasures mission
modules............................................ 26
Knifefish............................................ 26
Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program....... 26
Ship's signal exploitation equipment expansion....... 27
Next Generation Surface Search Radar................. 27
Sonobuoys............................................ 27
Electronic Procurement System........................ 27
Air Force................................................ 27
F-35A................................................ 27
F-35 advanced procurement............................ 28
F-15X................................................ 28
KC-46................................................ 28
F-15 ADCP............................................ 28
F-15 IFF modernization............................... 29
F-15 Longerons....................................... 29
F-15 Radar........................................... 29
F-16 modernization................................... 29
F-15C EPAWSS......................................... 30
Command and control sustainability................... 30
F-35A Spares......................................... 30
KC-46 Spares......................................... 30
RQ-4 spare parts..................................... 31
Minuteman III Modifications.......................... 31
Air-Launched Cruise Missile.......................... 31
F-35 training and range modernization................ 31
Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System........ 31
Defense Wide............................................. 32
Sharkseer transfer................................... 32
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense
Agency procurement................................. 32
Sharkseer transfer................................... 32
Radio Frequency Countermeasure System................ 32
Transfer OCO to Base................................. 33
Items of Special Interest................................ 33
A-10 modernization................................... 33
Acquisition strategy for LHA-9 and LHA-10............ 33
Acquisition strategy for LPD Flight II-class ships... 34
Active Protection System for Stryker................. 34
Adaptive Threat Force................................ 34
Advanced Helicopter Training System.................. 35
Advanced survivability modeling capability for air-
launched weapons................................... 35
Aerospace ground equipment for B-52 Stratofortress... 36
Air Force Active Association......................... 36
Air Force Future ISR Integration Strategy............ 36
Air Force ISR SIGINT data integration................ 37
Army rotary wing munitions capabilities, capability
gaps, and solutions................................ 38
ATACMS Requirement................................... 38
Bomber roadmap....................................... 39
Bradley program...................................... 39
Building Partner Combat Air Capacity................. 40
Capability to counter supersonic and hypersonic
cruise missiles.................................... 40
Carbon fiber wheels and graphitic foam for Next
Generation Combat Vehicle.......................... 41
CH-47F Block II Program.............................. 41
CH-53K King Stallion program......................... 42
Close combat lethality task force.................... 42
Columbia-class schedule.............................. 43
DOD efforts to improve friendly force identification. 43
Future Vertical Lift Capability Set 3 potential
acceleration....................................... 44
Global Broadcast System Technologies................. 45
Guided missile frigate (FFG(X))...................... 45
Improved Turbine Engine Program...................... 46
Improving Air Force acquisition and sustainment
processes.......................................... 46
Marine Corps nano vertical takeoff and landing
unmanned aerial systems............................ 46
Metrics for evaluating potential impacts to airspace. 46
Mobile aircrew restraint system...................... 47
Modular rugged power devices......................... 47
Mounted A-PNT solutions.............................. 47
MQ-1 Gray Eagle briefing............................. 48
Multiyear block buy for F-35......................... 48
Operational energy of generator sets................. 48
Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaisance (ISR) and heavy payloads............. 49
Personal recovery devices for servicemembers......... 50
Reliability growth of systems on Ford-class aircraft
carriers........................................... 50
Report on future force design alternatives for
Department of the Air Force........................ 51
Report on impact to force structure of using aircraft
for missile defense................................ 52
Robotics and autonomous systems...................... 52
Size, weight, power reductions of naval combat
systems............................................ 53
Small-Unit Support Vehicle replacement............... 53
Submarine industrial base and parts availability..... 53
Supporting and expanding the submarine sub-
contracting industrial base........................ 54
Survivable artillery................................. 54
Tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base............. 54
TH-57 replacement.................................... 55
UH-1N replacement.................................... 55
Unmanned aerial systems training locations........... 56
Vehicle Reconnaissance System........................ 56
Virginia-class hull treatment briefing............... 56
Western Army Aviation Training Site (WAATS) for FMS.. 57
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 59
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 59
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 59
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 59
Development and acquisition strategy to procure secure,
low probability of detection data link network
capability (sec. 211).................................. 59
Establishment of secure next-generation wireless network
(5G) infrastructure for the Nevada Test and Training
Range and base infrastructure (sec. 212)............... 59
Limitation and report on Indirect Fire Protection
Capability Increment 2 enduring capability (sec. 213).. 60
Electromagnetic spectrum sharing research and development
program (sec. 214)..................................... 60
Sense of the Senate on the Advanced Battle Management
System (sec. 215)...................................... 61
Modification of proof of concept commercialization
program (sec. 216)..................................... 61
Modification of Defense quantum information science and
technology research and development program (sec. 217). 61
Technology and National Security Fellowship (sec. 218)... 62
Direct Air Capture and Blue Carbon Removal Technology
Program (sec. 219)..................................... 62
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 62
National security emerging biotechnologies research and
development program (sec. 231)......................... 62
Cyber science and technology activities roadmap and
reports (sec. 232)..................................... 63
Requiring certain microelectronics products and services
meet trusted supply chain and operational security
standards (sec. 233)................................... 63
Technical correction to Global Research Watch Program
(sec. 234)............................................. 64
Additional technology areas for expedited access to
technical talent (sec. 235)............................ 64
Sense of the Senate and periodic briefings on the
security and availability of fifth-generation (5G)
wireless network technology and production (sec. 236).. 64
Transfer of Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office
(sec. 237)............................................. 64
Briefing on cooperative defense technology programs and
risks of technology transfer to China or Russia (sec.
238)................................................... 65
Modification of authority for prizes for advanced
technology achievements (sec. 239)..................... 65
Use of funds for Strategic Environmental Research
Program, Environmental Security Technical Certification
Program, and Operational Energy Capability Improvement
(sec. 240)............................................. 65
Funding for the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear
analysis of alternatives (sec. 241).................... 65
Review and assessment pertaining to transition of
Department of Defense-originated dual-use technology
(sec. 242)............................................. 66
Budget Items................................................. 66
Army..................................................... 66
Defense research sciences for counter unmanned aerial
vehicle research................................... 66
3D printing research................................. 66
Cyber Collaborative Research Alliance................ 67
Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region.. 67
Advanced materials manufacturing processes........... 67
Biopolymer structural materials research............. 68
Advanced materials for infrastructure................ 68
Next Generation Combat Vehicle technology............ 68
Composite tube and propulsion research............... 69
Printed armament components.......................... 69
C3I Applied Cyber.................................... 69
Female warfighter performance research............... 69
Long duration battery storage........................ 70
Computational manufacturing engineering.............. 70
Lightweight protective and hardening materials
research........................................... 70
Robotic construction research........................ 70
Ground vehicle sustainment research.................. 71
Next generation combat vehicle advanced technology
for fuel cell propulsion and autonomous driving
control............................................ 71
Hypersonics testing research......................... 71
Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA)........... 72
Hypersonic weapon system............................. 72
Next Generation Squad Weapon--Automatic Rifle........ 72
Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army............ 72
Army contract writing system......................... 73
Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2...... 73
Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 EMAM. 73
Multi-Domain Artillery............................... 73
Ground Robotics Squad Multipurpose Equipment
Transport (S-MET).................................. 74
Next Generation Combat Vehicle 50mm gun.............. 74
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle......................... 74
Cybersecurity threat simulation research............. 75
Directed energy test capabilities.................... 75
CD ATACMS............................................ 75
Nanoscale materials manufacturing.................... 75
Navy..................................................... 76
University Research Initiatives...................... 76
Carbon capture increase.............................. 76
Electric propulsion research......................... 76
Energy resilience research........................... 76
Force protection applied research.................... 77
Test bed for autonomous ship systems................. 77
Interdisciplinary cyber research..................... 77
Common picture applied research...................... 77
Applied warfighter safety and performance research... 78
Electromagnetic systems applied research............. 78
Navy industry-university undersea vehicle
technologies....................................... 78
USMC Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)......... 79
Mobile Unmanned/Manned Distributed Lethality Airborne
Network............................................ 79
Innovative Naval Prototypes (INP) advance technology
development........................................ 79
Littoral battlespace sensing autonomous undersea
vehicle............................................ 79
Large unmanned surface vessels....................... 80
Advanced submarine system development................ 80
Large Surface Combatant concept advanced design...... 81
Large Surface Combatant preliminary design........... 81
Advanced surface machinery system component
prototyping........................................ 82
Columbia-class submarines............................ 82
Littoral Combat Ship mission modules................. 82
U.S. Marine Corps Additive Manufacturing Logistics
Software Pilot Program............................. 83
Nuclear sea-launched cruise missile.................. 83
V-22 nacelle improvement program..................... 83
Mine Development--Quickstrike JDAM ER................ 84
Information Technology Development................... 84
CH-53K King Stallion program......................... 84
Ship to Shore Connector.............................. 84
Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems...... 84
Intelligent Power Management Systems................. 85
Air Force................................................ 85
High energy X-ray materials structures research...... 85
Materials research................................... 85
Aerospace Vehicle Technologies....................... 86
Counter unmanned aerial systems research............. 86
Cyberspace dominance technology research............. 86
Quantum science research............................. 86
High power microwave research........................ 87
Metals affordability research........................ 87
Acceleration of development of hypersonic quick
reaction capability and hypersonic airbreathing
weapon............................................. 87
Shape morphing aircraft structures development....... 88
Combat Search and Rescue advanced prototyping........ 88
Low Cost Attributable Aircraft Technology............ 88
Aerospace propulsion and power technology............ 88
Electronic combat technology......................... 89
Advanced spacecraft technology....................... 89
Advanced materials and materials manufacturing....... 89
Battlespace knowledge and development demonstration.. 90
M-Code acceleration--advanced component development &
prototypes......................................... 90
Rapid repair and sustainability increase............. 90
Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent..................... 90
Light Attack experiment.............................. 91
Cyber National Mission Force capabilities............ 91
ETERNALDARKNESS program development.................. 91
Joint Common Access Platform......................... 92
Protected Tactical Enterprise Service................ 92
Protected Tactical Service........................... 92
ERWn................................................. 92
M-Code acceleration--system development &
demonstration...................................... 93
Space Fence.......................................... 93
Major T&E Investment................................. 93
Utah test range instrumentation...................... 93
Investment in hypersonic research and infrastructure. 94
5G Military Operational Test Capability.............. 94
Advanced Battle Management System base architecture.. 95
Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System........ 95
HC-130 RDT&E......................................... 95
Airborne Launch Control System Replacement........... 95
Advanced data transport flight test.................. 96
ISR automation....................................... 96
Defense Wide............................................. 96
Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research........................................... 96
Submarine industrial base workforce development...... 97
Aerospace education and research..................... 97
Computer modeling of PFAS............................ 97
Cyber Security Research.............................. 97
Artificial intelligence commercial solutions......... 98
Joint capability technology demonstrations........... 98
Emerging capabilities technology development......... 98
SERDP increase....................................... 98
Program increase to support National Defense Strategy
technologies....................................... 99
ESTCP increase....................................... 99
MDA special programs................................. 100
Neutral particle beam................................ 100
Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System...................... 100
Strategic Capabilities Office........................ 101
Trusted and assured microelectronics................. 101
Rapid prototyping program............................ 101
Space Development Agency missile defense programs.... 101
Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor....... 102
Joint Mission Environment Test Capability............ 102
Technical Studies, Support, and Analysis............. 103
Systems engineering.................................. 103
Defense Digital Service development support.......... 103
Advanced manufacturing systems....................... 103
Composite manufacturing technologies................. 103
Printed circuit boards............................... 104
Rare earths materials research....................... 104
Sharkseer transfer................................... 104
Sharkseer transfer................................... 105
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
activities......................................... 105
Future Vertical Lift................................. 105
Next Generation Information Communications Technology
(5G)............................................... 106
Transfer from OCO to Base............................ 106
Items of Special Interest.................................... 106
Acquisition roadmaps for certain Navy unmanned systems... 106
Advance power electronics................................ 107
Army Futures Command research budget realignments........ 107
Artificial intelligence and sensor fusion for force
protection............................................. 108
Artificial intelligence for Army air and missile defense. 108
Back-packable Communications Intelligence System......... 108
Battlefield situational awareness........................ 109
Briefing on detection of uncharted wires and obstacles to
prevent aviation incidents............................. 109
Demonstration pilots to demonstrate cost savings and
enhanced performance of anti-corrosion nanotechnologies 109
Department of Defense artificial intelligence investment
inventory.............................................. 110
Flame resistant military uniforms with multi-spectral
sensor protection...................................... 110
High powered microwave test range asset.................. 110
Historically black colleges and universities support for
minority women in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics fields..................................... 111
Hostile fire detection technology........................ 111
Human factors modeling and simulation.................... 111
Hypersonic development................................... 112
Importance and use of United States Active Ionospheric
Research Facilities.................................... 112
Interdisciplinary expeditionary cybersecurity research... 113
Light attack experiment.................................. 113
Multifunction capability to provide communications in
contested environments................................. 113
Navy laser integration plans............................. 114
Production-ready sources for hypersonic materials........ 115
Requirement for briefing on Advanced Battle Management
System acquisition strategy............................ 115
Use of commercial cloud services to support high
performance computing needs............................ 115
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 117
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 117
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)............... 117
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment........................... 117
Use of operational energy cost savings of Department of
Defense (sec. 311)..................................... 117
Use of proceeds from sales of electrical energy generated
from geothermal resources (sec. 312)................... 117
Energy resilience programs and activities (sec. 313)..... 117
Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation
program (sec. 314)..................................... 117
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for
certain costs in connection with the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant, Minnesota (sec. 315)................. 117
Prohibition on use of perfluoroalkyl substances and
polyfluoroalkyl substances for land-based applications
of firefighting foam (sec. 316)........................ 118
Transfer authority for funding of study and assessment on
health implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances contamination in drinking water by Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (sec. 317)... 118
Cooperative agreements with States to address
contamination by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (sec. 318).................................. 118
Modification of Department of Defense environmental
restoration authorities to include Federal Government
facilities used by National Guard (sec. 319)........... 118
Budgeting of Department of Defense relating to extreme
weather (sec. 320)..................................... 118
Pilot program for availability of working-capital funds
for increased combat capability through energy
optimization (sec. 321)................................ 118
Report on efforts to reduce high energy intensity at
military installations (sec. 322)...................... 119
Technical and grammatical corrections and repeal of
obsolete provisions relating to energy (sec. 323)...... 119
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 119
Requirement for memoranda of understanding between the
Air Force and the Navy regarding depot maintenance
(sec. 331)............................................. 119
Modification to limitation on length of overseas forward
deployment of naval vessels (sec. 332)................. 119
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 119
Report on modernization of Joint Pacific Alaska Range
Complex (sec. 341)..................................... 119
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 120
Strategy to improve infrastructure of certain depots of
the Department of Defense (sec. 351)................... 120
Limitation on use of funds regarding the basing of KC-46A
aircraft outside the continental United States (sec.
352)................................................... 120
Prevention of encroachment on military training routes
and military operations areas (sec. 353)............... 120
Expansion and enhancement of authorities on transfer and
adoption of military animals (sec. 354)................ 120
Limitation on contracting relating to Defense Personal
Property Program (sec. 355)............................ 121
Prohibition on subjective upgrades by commanders of unit
ratings in monthly readiness reporting on military
units (sec. 356)....................................... 121
Extension of temporary installation reutilization
authority for arsenals, depots, and plants (sec. 357).. 121
Clarification of food ingredient requirements for food or
beverages provided by the Department of Defense (sec.
358)................................................... 122
Technical correction to deadline for transition to
Defense Readiness Reporting System Strategic (sec. 359) 122
Budget Items................................................. 122
Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region...... 122
Army Base Operations Support under execution............. 123
Army savings from revised housing cost share............. 123
C4I life-cycle replacement at Joint Intelligence
Operations Center Europe Analytic Center............... 123
Army advertising and recruiting budget decrease.......... 123
Army Other Personnel Support under execution............. 124
Army Claims Activities under execution................... 124
Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities--Army............. 124
Family housing pilot program............................. 124
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army sustainment..... 125
Army National Guard facilities sustainment disaster
recovery increase...................................... 125
Army National Guard recruiting and advertising decrease.. 125
Navy depot maintenance unfunded requirement increase..... 125
Posture site assessments in the Indo-Pacific region...... 126
Navy housing cost share.................................. 126
Navy advertising reduction............................... 126
Navy administration decrease............................. 127
Navy audit reduction..................................... 127
Resilient Energy Program Office.......................... 127
Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities--Navy............. 127
Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities--Marine Corps..... 128
Air Force savings from revised housing cost share........ 128
US CYBERCOM.............................................. 128
Air Force advertising reduction.......................... 128
Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities--Air Force........ 129
Innovative Readiness Training increase................... 129
STARBASE program......................................... 129
Defense Information Systems Agency MilCloud.............. 130
Sharkseer transfer....................................... 130
Assessment, monitoring, and evaluation................... 130
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 130
Consolidated adjudication facility....................... 131
Impact aid............................................... 131
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense
Agency sustainment..................................... 132
Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup.................................. 132
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nation-wide
human health assessment................................ 132
Department of Defense Emerging Contaminants increase..... 132
Industrial Policy program support........................ 132
Improvement of occupational license portability for
military spouses through interstate compacts........... 133
National Commission on Military Aviation Safety.......... 133
Supplemental funding for the National Commission on
Military, National, and Public Service................. 133
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative........ 134
Defense Digital Service expert civilians................. 134
Sharkseer transfer....................................... 134
Foreign currency fluctuation reduction................... 135
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps increase......... 135
Printing inefficiency reduction.......................... 135
Transfer of OCO to Base account.......................... 135
Items of Special Interest.................................... 135
Arctic search and rescue................................. 135
Army Training Next virtual reality pilot program......... 136
Battle Record Information Core Environment (BRICE)
maintenance application................................ 136
Cold spray technology.................................... 137
Comptroller General review of Department of Defense
utility resilience planning to support cybersecurity
threats................................................ 137
Comptroller General review of mobility in contested
environments........................................... 137
Corrosion prevention briefing............................ 138
Data collection and reporting to validation of small arms
simulation readiness improvements and resourcing
planning............................................... 139
Defense energy resilience tools for project development.. 139
Development and fielding of expeditionary energy
technology in the Department of Defense................ 140
Encroachment on military installations................... 140
Extended funding obligation period for private contracted
ship maintenance....................................... 140
Improving Navy radar training and readiness.............. 141
Improving oversight of pilots in non-operational staff
positions.............................................. 141
Liability exposure for electric companies during national
emergencies............................................ 142
Lightweight ammunition................................... 142
Marine Depot Maintenance Command facilities review....... 142
National Guard Unit equipped flying squadrons............ 143
Prepositioned Assets in the Indo-Pacific Region.......... 143
Preservation of the Force and Families initiative........ 144
Public-to-public partnerships briefing requirement....... 144
Recycled content in clothing items....................... 145
Report on future Combat Search and Rescue in support of
National Defense Strategy.............................. 145
Report on guidelines for maintenance and preservation of
Department of Defense historic aircraft and spacecraft. 146
Report on Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic
Acid contamination on military installations........... 146
Report on Special Federal Aviation Regulation waivers for
U.S. air carriers and recommendations to expedite re-
designation of civil aircraft as state aircraft........ 147
Rotary-wing aviation foreign internal defense............ 147
Storm water utilities privatization...................... 148
Study on fire extinguishers.............................. 148
Westover Air Reserve Base--Defense Logistics Agency study
of fuel pipeline....................................... 149
Women servicemember personal protective equipment........ 149
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 151
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 151
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 151
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 151
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 151
End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 151
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 152
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 414)......... 153
Authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserves on active
duty (sec. 415)........................................ 153
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 153
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 153
Budget Items................................................. 153
Military personnel funding changes....................... 153
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 155
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 155
Repeal of codified specification of authorized strengths
of certain commissioned officers on active duty (sec.
501)................................................... 155
Maker of original appointments in a regular or reserve
component of commissioned officers previously subject
to original appointment in other type of component
(sec. 502)............................................. 156
Furnishing of adverse information on officers to
promotion selection boards (sec. 503).................. 156
Limitation on number of officers recommendable for
promotion by promotion selection boards (sec. 504)..... 157
Expansion of authority for continuation on active duty of
officers in certain military specialties and career
tracks (sec. 505)...................................... 157
Higher grade in retirement for officers following
reopening of determination or certification of retired
grade (sec. 506)....................................... 157
Availability on the Internet of certain information about
officers serving in general or flag officer grades
(sec. 507)............................................. 157
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 158
Repeal of requirement for review of certain Army Reserve
officer unit vacancy promotions by commanders of
associated active duty units (sec. 511)................ 158
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 158
Modification of authorities on management of deployments
of members of the Armed Forces and related unit
operating and personnel tempo matters (sec. 515)....... 158
Repeal of requirement that parental leave be taken in one
increment (sec. 516)................................... 158
Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed
Forces (sec. 517)...................................... 158
Modification of notification on manning of afloat naval
forces (sec. 518)...................................... 158
Report on expansion of the Close Airman Support team
approach of the Air Force to the other Armed Forces
(sec. 519)............................................. 159
Subtitle D--Military Justice and Related Matters............. 159
Part I--Matters Relating to Investigation, Prosecution,
and Defense of Sexual Assault Generally................ 159
Department of Defense-wide policy and military
department-specific programs on reinvigoration of
the prevention of sexual assault involving members
of the Armed Forces (sec. 521)..................... 159
Enactment and expansion of policy on withholding of
initial disposition authority for certain offenses
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec.
522)............................................... 159
Training for Sexual Assault Initial Disposition
Authorities on exercise of disposition authority
for sexual assault and collateral offenses (sec.
523)............................................... 160
Expansion of responsibilities of commanders for
victims of sexual assault committed by another
member of the Armed Forces (sec. 524).............. 160
Training for commanders in the Armed Forces on their
role in all stages of military justice in
connection with sexual assault (sec. 525).......... 160
Notice to victims of alleged sexual assault of
pendency of further administrative action following
a determination not to refer to trial by court-
martial (sec. 526)................................. 161
Safe to report policy applicable across the Armed
Forces (sec. 527).................................. 161
Report on expansion of Air Force safe to report
policy across the Armed Forces (sec. 528).......... 161
Proposal for separate punitive article in the Uniform
Code of Military Justice on sexual harassment (sec.
529)............................................... 162
Treatment of information in Catch a Serial Offender
Program for certain purposes (sec. 530)............ 162
Report on preservation of recourse to restricted
report on sexual assault for victims of sexual
assault following certain victim or third-party
communications (sec. 531).......................... 162
Authority for return of personal property to victims
of sexual assault who file a Restricted Report
before conclusion of related proceedings (sec. 532) 163
Extension of Defense Advisory Committee on
Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual
Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 533)............. 163
Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of
Sexual Misconduct (sec. 534)....................... 163
Independent reviews and assessments on race and
ethnicity in the investigation, prosecution, and
defense of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec.
535)............................................... 164
Report on mechanisms to enhance the integration and
synchronization of activities of Special Victim
Investigation and Prosecution personnel with
activities of military criminal investigation
organizations (sec. 536)........................... 164
Comptroller General of the United States report on
implementation by the Armed Forces of recent
statutory requirements on sexual assault prevention
and response in the military (sec. 537)............ 164
Part II--Special Victims' Counsel Matters................ 165
Legal assistance by Special Victims' Counsel for
victims of alleged domestic violence offenses (sec.
541)............................................... 165
Other Special Victims' Counsel matters (sec. 542).... 165
Availability of Special Victims' Counsel at military
installations (sec. 543)........................... 165
Training for Special Victims' Counsel on civilian
criminal justice matters in the States of the
military installations to which assigned (sec. 544) 166
Part III--Boards for Correction of Military Records and
Discharge Review Board Matters......................... 166
Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions
or requests for review of discharge or dismissal
from the Armed Forces (sec. 546)................... 166
Reduction in required number of members of discharge
review boards (sec. 547)........................... 166
Enhancement of personnel on boards for the correction
of military records and discharge review boards
(sec. 548)......................................... 166
Inclusion of intimate partner violence and spousal
abuse among supporting rationales for certain
claims for corrections of military records and
discharge review (sec. 549)........................ 167
Advice and counsel of trauma experts in review by
boards for correction of military records and
discharge review boards of certain claims (sec.
550)............................................... 167
Training of members of boards for correction of
military records and discharge review boards on
sexual trauma, intimate partner violence, spousal
abuse, and related matters (sec. 551).............. 167
Limitations and requirements in connection with
separations for members of the Armed Forces who
suffer from mental health conditions in connection
with a sex-related, intimate partner violence-
related, or spousal abuse-related offense (sec.
552)............................................... 168
Liberal consideration of evidence in certain claims
by boards for the correction of military records
and discharge review boards (sec. 553)............. 168
Part IV--Other Military Justice Matters.................. 168
Expansion of pre-referral matters reviewable by
military judges and military magistrates in the
interest of efficiency in military justice (sec.
555)............................................... 168
Policies and procedures on registration at military
installations of civilian protective orders
applicable to members of the Armed Forces assigned
to such installations and certain other individuals
(sec. 556)......................................... 168
Increase in number of digital forensic examiners for
the military criminal investigation organizations
(sec. 557)......................................... 169
Survey of members of the Armed Forces on their
experiences with military investigations and
military justice (sec. 558)........................ 169
Public access to dockets, filings, and court records
of courts-martial and other records of trial of the
military justice system (sec. 559)................. 169
Pilot programs on defense investigators in the
military justice system (sec. 560)................. 170
Report on military justice system involving
alternative authority for determining whether to
prefer or refer charges for felony offense under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 561).... 170
Report on standardization among the military
departments in collection and presentation of
information on matters within the military justice
system (sec. 562).................................. 171
Report on establishment of guardian ad litem program
for certain military dependents who are victim or
witness of offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice involving abuse or exploitation
(sec. 563)......................................... 171
Subtitle E--Member Education, Training, Transition, and
Resilience................................................. 172
Consecutive service of service obligation in connection
with payment of tuition for off-duty training or
education for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces
with any other service obligations (sec. 566).......... 172
Authority for detail of certain enlisted members of the
Armed Forces as students at law schools (sec. 567)..... 172
Connections of members retiring or separating from the
Armed Forces with community-based organizations and
related entities (sec. 568)............................ 172
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters.......................................... 172
Part I--Defense Dependents' Education Matters............ 172
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 571)............................... 172
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities
(sec. 572)......................................... 173
Ri,katak Guest Student Program at United States Army
Garrison-Kwajalein Atoll (sec. 573)................ 173
Part II--Military Family Readiness Matters............... 173
Two-year extension of authority for reimbursement for
State licensure and certification costs of spouses
of members of the Armed Forces arising from
relocation to another State (sec. 576)............. 173
Improvement of occupational license portability for
military spouses through interstate compacts (sec.
577)............................................... 173
Modification of responsibility of the Office of
Special Needs for individualized service plans for
members of military families with special needs
(sec. 578)......................................... 174
Clarifying technical amendment on direct hire
authority for the Department of Defense for
childcare services providers for Department child
development centers (sec. 579)..................... 174
Pilot program on information sharing between
Department of Defense and designated relatives and
friends of members of the Armed Forces regarding
the experiences and challenges of military service
(sec. 580)......................................... 174
Briefing on use of Family Advocacy Programs to
address domestic violence (sec. 581)............... 175
Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards........................... 175
Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to John J.
Duffy for acts of valor in Vietnam (sec. 585).......... 175
Standardization of honorable service requirement for
award of military decorations (sec. 586)............... 175
Authority to award or present a decoration not previously
recommended in a timely fashion following a review
requested by Congress (sec. 587)....................... 175
Authority to make posthumous and honorary promotions and
appointments following a review requested by Congress
(sec. 588)............................................. 175
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 176
Military funeral honors matters (sec. 591)............... 176
Inclusion of homeschooled students in Junior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps units (sec. 592).............. 176
Sense of Senate on the Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (sec. 593)....................................... 176
Items of Special Interest.................................... 176
Active-Duty Service Commitment for Personnel
Graduating Cybersecurity Courses................... 176
Active-Duty service obligations for military service
academy graduates.................................. 177
Adequacy of childcare workforce and capacity across
the Department of Defense.......................... 177
Air battle manager accessions........................ 178
Assessment and report on expanding the eligibility
for the My Career Advancement Account Program...... 178
Basic training athletic shoe variant analysis for new
recruits........................................... 179
Briefing on Staff Judge Advocates' trial experience.. 179
Childcare parity..................................... 180
Command climate assessment in officer and enlisted
appraisal reports.................................. 180
Comptroller General Study on Effectiveness of Student
Loan Forgiveness Program on Readiness and
Recruiting......................................... 181
Concern over hunger and food security in military
families........................................... 181
Concurrent use of Montgomery G.I. Bill and Department
of Defense-funded tuition assistance............... 182
Department of Defense cooperation with United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness................ 182
Department of Defense credentialing.................. 183
Development of strategic basing factors to support
military families.................................. 183
Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed
Forces............................................. 183
Duty to intervene.................................... 184
Encouraging victims of domestic violence and sex-
related offenses to secure military and civilian
protection orders.................................. 184
Enlistment and accession testing and standards for
non-native English speaking recruits............... 185
Expanding the Military Ballot Tracking Pilot to
additional military voters and their families...... 186
Expansion of the Military Spouse Employment
Partnership across the Department of Defense....... 187
Expedited naturalization of non-citizen
servicemembers..................................... 187
Extended paid family leave for secondary caregivers.. 188
Family Child Care home expansion..................... 188
Full time support manpower study..................... 189
Military childcare system study on outcomes for
children and parents............................... 189
Rapidly incorporating data tools to enhance military
recruiting......................................... 189
Reliability and completeness of information in
inspector general case management systems.......... 189
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Scholarship Program
and Recruiting of Future Cyber Officers............ 190
Review of support services provided to military
servicemembers assigned to designated remote bases. 191
Rights of sexual assault survivors to testify at
court-martial sentencing proceedings............... 191
Safe to Report policy................................ 191
Special Victims' Counsel legal consultation and
assistance to victims subject to retaliation....... 192
Support for Air Force Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps Flight Academy...................... 192
Telework option for military spouses in Department of
Defense contracts.................................. 193
Timely response to inspector general referral of
reports of investigation substantiating reprisal... 193
Training Department of Defense and military
department human resources personnel to assist
military spouses seeking employment................ 194
Transition Assistance Programs at remote and isolated
installations...................................... 195
Tuition assistance in the Reserves and National Guard 195
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 197
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 197
Expansion of eligibility for exceptional transitional
compensation for dependents to dependents of current
members (sec. 601)..................................... 197
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 197
One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special
pay authorities (sec. 611)............................. 197
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 197
Extension of pilot program on a Government lodging
program (sec. 621)..................................... 197
Reinvestment of travel refunds by the Department of
Defense (sec. 622)..................................... 198
Subtitle D--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
Benefits................................................... 198
Contributions to Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund based on pay costs per Armed Force
rather than on Armed Forces-wide basis (sec. 631)...... 198
Modification of authorities on eligibility for and
replacement of gold star lapel buttons (sec. 632)...... 199
Subtitle E--Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................... 199
Defense resale system matters (sec. 641)................. 199
Treatment of fees on services provided as supplemental
funds for commissary operations (sec. 642)............. 200
Procurement by commissary stores of certain locally
sourced products (sec. 643)............................ 200
Items of Special Interest.................................... 200
Blended Retirement System implementation study........... 200
Commissary store operations.............................. 201
Comptroller General assessment on defense resale reform.. 201
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 203
Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits........... 203
Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program
(sec. 701)............................................. 203
TRICARE payment options for retirees and their dependents
(sec. 702)............................................. 203
Lead level screening and testing for children (sec. 703). 203
Provision of blood testing for firefighters of Department
of Defense to determine exposure to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (sec. 704).................. 204
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 204
Modification of organization of military health system
(sec. 711)............................................. 204
Support by military health system of medical requirements
of combatant commands (sec. 712)....................... 204
Tours of duty of commanders or directors of military
treatment facilities (sec. 713)........................ 204
Expansion of strategy to improve acquisition of managed
care support contracts under TRICARE program (sec. 714) 204
Establishment of regional medical hubs to support
combatant commands (sec. 715).......................... 205
Monitoring of adverse event data on dietary supplement
use by members of the Armed Forces (sec. 716).......... 205
Enhancement of recordkeeping with respect to exposure by
members of the Armed Forces to certain occupational and
environmental hazards while deployed overseas (sec.
717)................................................... 205
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 206
Extension and clarification of authority for Joint
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 721)......... 206
Appointment of non-ex officio members of the Henry M.
Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military
Medicine (sec. 722).................................... 206
Officers authorized to command Army dental units (sec.
723)................................................... 206
Establishment of Academic Health System in National
Capital Region (sec. 724).............................. 206
Provision of veterinary services by veterinary
professionals of the Department of Defense in
emergencies (sec. 725)................................. 207
Five-year extension of authority to continue the DOD-VA
Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund (sec. 726).......... 207
Pilot Program on civilian and military partnerships to
enhance interoperability and medical surge capability
and capacity of National Disaster Medical System (sec.
727)................................................... 207
Modification of requirements for longitudinal medical
study on blast pressure exposure of members of the
Armed Forces (sec. 728)................................ 207
Items of Special Interest.................................... 208
Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine......... 208
Chronic migraine and post-traumatic headaches............ 208
Comptroller General review of enlisted medical workforce. 208
Department of Defense briefing on the rate and incidence
of pregnancy-associated deaths......................... 209
Expansion of studies of exposure to blast in training and
operations and documentation of blast exposure in
individual longitudinal exposure records............... 209
Healthy food options on military installations........... 210
Home healthcare services................................. 210
Objective diagnostic capabilities for traumatic brain
injury................................................. 210
Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations
for specialized medical training....................... 211
Prescription drug labels................................. 211
Study on infertility in members of the Armed Forces...... 211
Survey to determine providers' attitude towards
contraceptive services, their knowledge on obligations
to dispense and counsel on contraception and assess
potential cultural barriers to providing contraceptive
services............................................... 212
Tactical combat casualty care training................... 212
TRICARE coverage of continuous glucose monitors.......... 213
TRICARE improper medical claims payments................. 213
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS................................................ 215
Subtitle A--Contracting and Acquisition Provisions........... 215
Pilot program on intellectual property evaluation for
acquisition programs (sec. 801)........................ 215
Pilot program to use alpha contracting teams for complex
requirements (sec. 802)................................ 215
Modification of written approval requirement for task and
delivery order single contract awards (sec. 803)....... 215
Extension of authority to acquire products and services
produced in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan (sec. 804)................................. 216
Modification of Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation report (sec. 805)........................... 216
Department of Defense use of fixed-price contracts (sec.
806)................................................... 216
Pilot program to accelerate contracting and pricing
processes (sec. 807)................................... 216
Pilot program to streamline decision-making processes for
weapon systems (sec. 808).............................. 216
Documentation of market research related to commercial
item determinations (sec. 809)......................... 217
Modification to small purchase threshold exception to
sourcing requirements for certain articles (sec. 810).. 217
Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 217
Naval vessel certification required before Milestone B
approval (sec. 821).................................... 217
Subtitle C--Industrial Base Matters.......................... 217
Modernization of acquisition processes to ensure
integrity of industrial base (sec. 831)................ 217
Assessment of precision-guided missiles for reliance on
foreign-made microelectronic components (sec. 832)..... 218
Mitigating risks related to foreign ownership, control,
or influence of Department of Defense contractors or
subcontractors (sec. 833).............................. 218
Extension and revisions to Never Contract With the Enemy
(sec. 834)............................................. 219
Subtitle D--Small Business Matters........................... 219
Reauthorization and improvement of Department of Defense
Mentor-Protege Program (sec. 841)...................... 219
Modification of justification and approval requirement
for certain Department of Defense contracts (sec. 842). 219
Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Software-Driven
Capabilities............................................... 220
Improved management of information technology and
cyberspace investments (sec. 851)...................... 220
Special pathways for rapid acquisition of software
applications and upgrades (sec. 852)................... 220
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 221
Notification of Navy procurement production disruptions
(sec. 861)............................................. 221
Modification to acquisition authority of the Commander of
the United States Cyber Command (sec. 862)............. 221
Prohibition on operation or procurement of foreign-made
unmanned aircraft systems (sec. 863)................... 221
Prohibition on contracting with persons that have
business operations with the Maduro regime (sec. 864).. 221
Comptroller General of the United States report on
Department of Defense efforts to combat human
trafficking through procurement practices (sec. 865)... 221
Items of Special Interest.................................... 222
Alternatives to cost or pricing data..................... 222
Annual report on denials of contracting officer data
requests............................................... 222
Appreciation for the work of the Advisory Panel on
Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations..... 223
Army strategies to manage intellectual property.......... 223
Comptroller General assessment of Internet Protocol
version four (IPv4) utilization........................ 223
Comptroller General review of Army's Logistics Civil
Augmentation Program contract.......................... 224
Contractor workplace safety.............................. 224
Implications of acquisition reform for the organic
industrial base........................................ 225
Notifications related to exercising an option on a
contract............................................... 225
Optimizing processes and acquisition of contract writing
capabilities........................................... 225
Place of performance in Department of Defense contracts.. 226
Proper evaluation of past performance and experience of
potential offerors..................................... 226
Report on service contract management and oversight...... 226
Secure development operations software stacks............ 227
Stakeholder engagement practices of the Defense
Innovation Board....................................... 227
Training of skilled technicians for the defense
industrial base........................................ 228
Uncertified cost data.................................... 228
Wider adoption of model contracts for Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program awards.............. 229
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 231
Subtitle A--Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related
Matters.................................................... 231
Headquarters activities of the Department of Defense
matters (sec. 901)..................................... 231
Responsibility of Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment for Procurement Technical
Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (sec. 902).... 231
Return to Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense of responsibility for business systems and
related matters (sec. 903)............................. 232
Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy and Deputy
Principal Cyber Advisor (sec. 904)..................... 232
Limitation on the transfer of Strategic Capabilities
Office (sec. 905)...................................... 232
Subtitle B--Organization and Management of Other Department
of Defense Offices and Elements............................ 233
Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for
Energy, Installations, and Environment (sec. 911)...... 233
Repeal of conditional designation of Explosive Ordnance
Disposal Corps as a basic branch of the Army (sec. 912) 233
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 233
Exclusion from limitations on personnel in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense
headquarters of fellows appointed under the John S.
McCain Defense Fellows Program (sec. 921).............. 233
Report on resources to implement the civilian casualty
policy of the Department of Defense (sec. 922)......... 233
Items of Special Interest.................................... 233
Cross-functional teams................................... 233
Remote and isolated research and testing installations... 234
Secretariat for Special Operations....................... 234
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 237
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 237
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 237
Modification of required elements of annual reports on
emergency and extraordinary expenses of the Department
of Defense (sec. 1002)................................. 237
Inclusion of military construction projects in annual
reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces and
the combatant commands (sec. 1003)..................... 237
Prohibition on delegation of responsibility for submittal
to Congress of Out-Year Unconstrained Total Munitions
Requirements and Out-Year Inventory numbers (sec. 1004) 237
Element in annual reports on the Financial Improvement
and Audit Remediation Plan on activities with respect
to classified programs (sec. 1005)..................... 237
Modification of semiannual briefings on the consolidated
corrective action plan of the Department of Defense for
financial management information (sec. 1006)........... 238
Update of authorities and renaming of Department of
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec.
1007).................................................. 238
Subtitle B--Counterdrug Activities........................... 238
Modification of authority to support a unified
counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia
(sec. 1011)............................................ 238
Two-year extension of authority for joint task forces to
provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting
counter-terrorism activities (sec. 1012)............... 239
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 239
Modification of authority to purchase vessels using funds
in National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016)........... 239
Senior Technical Authority for each naval vessel class
(sec. 1017)............................................ 239
Permanent authority for sustaining operational readiness
of Littoral Combat Ships on extended deployment (sec.
1018).................................................. 240
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 241
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or
release of individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States
(sec. 1021)............................................ 241
Extension of prohibition on use of funds to construct or
modify facilities in the United States to house
detainees transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1022)....................... 241
Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or
release of individuals detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to certain countries
(sec. 1023)............................................ 241
Extension of prohibition on use of funds to close or
relinquish control of United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1024)....................... 241
Authority to transfer individuals detained at United
States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the
United States temporarily for emergency or critical
medical treatment (sec. 1025).......................... 242
Chief Medical Officer at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1026)....................... 242
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 242
Clarification of authority of military commissions under
chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, to punish
contempt (sec. 1031)................................... 242
Comprehensive Department of Defense policy on collective
self-defense (sec. 1032)............................... 243
Oversight of Department of Defense execute orders (sec.
1033).................................................. 243
Prohibition on ownership or trading of stocks in certain
companies by Department of Defense officers and
employees (sec. 1034).................................. 243
Policy regarding the transition of data and applications
to the cloud (sec. 1035)............................... 244
Modernization of inspection authorities applicable to the
National Guard and extension of inspection authority to
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 1036)..... 244
Enhancement of authorities on forfeiture of Federal
benefits by the National Guard (sec. 1037)............. 244
Modernization of authorities on property and fiscal
officers of the National Guard (sec. 1038)............. 244
Limitation on placement by the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness of work with federally
funded research and development centers (sec. 1039).... 245
Termination of requirement for Department of Defense
facility access clearances for joint ventures composed
of previously-cleared entities (sec. 1040)............. 245
Designation of Department of Defense Strategic Arctic
Ports (sec. 1041)...................................... 245
Extension of National Security Commission on Artificial
Intelligence (sec. 1042)............................... 246
Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup
(sec. 1043)............................................ 246
Limitation on use of funds to house children separated
from parents (sec. 1044)............................... 246
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 246
Modification of annual reporting requirements on defense
manpower (sec. 1051)................................... 246
Report on Department of Defense efforts to implement a
force planning process in support of implementation of
the 2018 National Defense Strategy (sec. 1052)......... 246
Extension of annual reports on civilian casualties in
connection with United States military operations (sec.
1053).................................................. 247
Report on joint force plan for implementation of
strategies of the Department of Defense for the Arctic
(sec. 1054)............................................ 247
Report on use of Northern Tier bases in implementation of
Arctic strategy of the United States (sec. 1055)....... 247
Report on the Department of Defense plan for mass-
casualty disaster response operations in the Arctic
(sec. 1056)............................................ 248
Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation
of retired general or flag officers by foreign
governments for Emoluments Clause purposes (sec. 1057). 248
Transmittal to Congress of requests for assistance
received by the Department of Defense from other
departments (sec. 1058)................................ 248
Semiannual report on Consolidated Adjudication Facility
of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
(sec. 1059)............................................ 248
Comptroller General of the United States report on post-
government employment of former Department of Defense
officials (sec. 1060).................................. 249
Subtitle G--Treatment of Contaminated Water Near Military
Installations.............................................. 249
Treatment of contaminated water near military
installations (secs. 1071-1075)........................ 249
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 249
Revision to authorities relating to mail service for
members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
civilians overseas (sec. 1081)......................... 249
Access to and use of military post offices by United
States citizens employed overseas by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization who perform functions in support of
military operations of the Armed Forces (sec. 1082).... 249
Guarantee of residency for spouses of members of
uniformed services (sec. 1083)......................... 250
Extension of requirement for briefings on the national
biodefense strategy (sec. 1084)........................ 250
Extension of National Commission on Military Aviation
Safety (sec. 1085)..................................... 250
Items of Special Interest.................................... 250
Allocation of Military Forces............................ 250
Assessment of the Requirement for a Strategic Arctic Port 251
Assignment of responsibility for the Arctic to a deputy
assistant secretary of defense......................... 251
Briefing on civilian casualties.......................... 252
Combatant Command pandemic planning...................... 252
Eliminating delays in initiating support to Government
Accountability Office audits........................... 252
Evaluation of modeling and simulation used for force
planning and theater operational requirements.......... 253
Information on Defense Spending.......................... 254
Public availability of Department of Defense reports
required by law........................................ 254
Report on the impacts of continuing resolutions.......... 255
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 257
Modification of temporary assignments of Department of
Defense employees to a private-sector organization
(sec. 1101)............................................ 257
Modification of number of available appointments for
certain agencies under personnel management authority
to attract experts in science and engineering (sec.
1102).................................................. 257
One-year extension of temporary authority to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian
personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1103) 257
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for Federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1104)............................................ 258
Reimbursement of Federal employees for Federal, State,
and local income taxes incurred during travel,
transportation, and relocation (sec. 1105)............. 258
Items of Special Interest.................................... 258
Analysis of competitive salary and benefits for STEM
professionals.......................................... 258
Appointments of retired members of the Armed Forces to
positions in the Department of Defense................. 259
Promulgation and delegation of Department of Defense
direct hire authority.................................. 260
Report on investments in national security human capital. 260
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 263
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 263
Extension of support of special operations for irregular
warfare (sec. 1201).................................... 263
Extension of authority for cross servicing agreements for
loan of personnel protection and personnel
survivability equipment in coalition operations (sec.
1202).................................................. 263
Two-year extension of program authority for Global
Security Contingency Fund (sec. 1203).................. 263
Modification of reporting requirement for use of funds
for security cooperation programs and activities (sec.
1204).................................................. 263
Institutional legal capacity building initiative for
foreign defense forces (sec. 1205)..................... 263
Department of Defense support for stabilization
activities in national security interest of the United
States (sec. 1206)..................................... 264
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 264
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1211)...................... 264
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1212)............. 264
Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program (sec.
1213).................................................. 264
Extension and modification of reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1214)........................ 264
Support for reconciliation activities led by the
Government of Afghanistan (sec. 1215).................. 265
Sense of Senate on special immigrant visa program for
Afghan allies (sec. 1216).............................. 265
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran........ 265
Modification of authority to provide assistance to vetted
Syrian groups (sec. 1221).............................. 265
Extension of authority and limitation on use of funds to
provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (sec. 1222).................................. 265
Extension and modification of authority to support
operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223)........................ 266
Coordinator of United States Government activities and
matters in connection with detainees who are members of
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1224)........ 266
Report on lessons learned from efforts to liberate Mosul
and Raqqah from control of the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (sec. 1225).................................. 266
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian
Federation................................................. 266
Prohibition on availability of funds relating to
sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec.
1231).................................................. 266
Prohibition on use of funds for withdrawal of Armed
Forces from Europe in the event of United States
withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty (sec. 1232).. 267
Extension of limitation on military cooperation between
the United States and the Russian Federation (sec.
1233).................................................. 267
Modification and extension of Ukraine Security Assistance
Initiative (sec. 1234)................................. 267
Extension of authority for training for Eastern European
national security forces in the course of multilateral
exercises (sec. 1235).................................. 268
Limitation on transfer of F-35 aircraft to the Republic
of Turkey (sec. 1236).................................. 268
Modifications of briefing, notification, and reporting
requirements relating to non-compliance by the Russian
Federation with its obligations under the INF Treaty
(sec. 1237)............................................ 269
Extension and modification of security assistance for
Baltic nations for joint program for interoperability
and deterrence against aggression (sec. 1238).......... 269
Report on North Atlantic Treaty Organization Readiness
Initiative (sec. 1239)................................. 270
Reports on contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (sec. 1240)............................... 270
Future years plans for European Deterrence Initiative
(sec. 1241)............................................ 270
Modification of reporting requirements relating to the
Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1242).......................... 271
Report on nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and
nuclear modernization of the People's Republic of China
(sec. 1243)............................................ 271
Sense of Senate on the 70th anniversary of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1244)............... 271
Sense of Senate on United States force posture in Europe
and the Republic of Poland (sec. 1245)................. 271
Sense of Senate on United States partnership with the
Republic of Georgia (sec. 1246)........................ 271
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region...... 271
Limitation on use of funds to reduce the total number of
members of the Armed Forces in the territory of the
Republic of Korea (sec. 1251).......................... 271
Expansion of Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative
(sec. 1252)............................................ 272
Modification of annual report on military and security
developments involving the People's Republic of China
(sec. 1253)............................................ 273
Report on resourcing United States defense requirements
for the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1254)................ 273
Report on distributed lay-down of United States forces in
the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1255).................... 274
Sense of Senate on the United States-Japan alliance and
defense cooperation (sec. 1256)........................ 274
Sense of Senate on enhancement of the United States-
Taiwan defense relationship (sec. 1257)................ 274
Sense of Senate on United States-India defense
relationship (sec. 1258)............................... 275
Sense of Senate on security commitments to the
Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and
trilateral cooperation among the United States, Japan,
and the Republic of Korea (sec. 1259).................. 275
Sense of Senate on enhanced cooperation with Pacific
Island countries to establish open-source intelligence
fusion centers in the Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1260).. 275
Sense of Senate on enhancing defense and security
cooperation with the Republic of Singapore (sec. 1261). 275
Subtitle F--Reports.......................................... 276
Report on cost imposition strategy (sec. 1271)........... 276
Subtitle G--Others Matters................................... 276
NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281)......... 276
Modifications of authorities relating to acquisition and
cross-servicing agreements (sec. 1282)................. 276
Modification of authority for United States-Israel anti-
tunnel cooperation activities (sec. 1283).............. 276
United States-Israel cooperation to counter unmanned
aerial systems (sec. 1284)............................. 276
Modification of initiative to support protection of
national security academic researchers from undue
influence and other security threats (sec. 1285)....... 277
Independent assessment of human rights situation in
Honduras (sec. 1286)................................... 277
United States Central Command posture review (sec. 1287). 277
Reports on expenses incurred for in-flight refueling of
Saudi coalition aircraft conducting missions relating
to civil war in Yemen (sec. 1288)...................... 278
Sense of Senate on security concerns with respect to
leasing arrangements for the Port of Haifa in Israel
(sec. 1289)............................................ 278
Items of Special Interest.................................... 278
Contributions of allies and partners to costs of U.S.
forces stationed overseas.............................. 278
Cooperative research and development efforts of the
United States and Israel............................... 279
Forward-deployed naval forces in Europe.................. 279
Matters related to Bosnia and Herzegovina................ 280
Matters related to Kosovo................................ 281
Protect Interests of Syrian Democratic Forces During U.S.
Withdrawal............................................. 281
Support to the Kurdish Peshmerga......................... 282
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 283
Funding allocations for Department of Defense Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program (sec. 1301)................... 283
Items of Special Interest.................................... 283
10-year risk planning for the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program...................................... 283
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 285
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 285
Working capital funds (sec. 1401)........................ 285
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1402).................................................. 285
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-
Wide (sec. 1403)....................................... 285
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404).................... 285
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)....................... 285
Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile....................... 285
Modification of prohibition on acquisition of sensitive
materials from non-allied foreign nations (sec. 1411).. 285
Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 285
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1421)............................ 285
Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1422)..................... 286
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 286
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health
Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1431)...................... 286
Budget Items................................................. 286
Air Force cash corpus for energy optimization............ 286
Contraceptive coverage parity under the TRICARE program.. 286
Items of Special Interest.................................... 287
Armed Forces Retirement Home............................. 287
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS......................................... 289
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 289
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 289
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502).............. 289
Procurement (sec. 1503).................................. 289
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504).. 289
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505).................... 289
Military personnel (sec. 1506)........................... 289
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................ 289
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1508)....................................... 289
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509).................... 290
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)....................... 290
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 290
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 290
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 290
Budget Items................................................. 290
Transfer from OCO to Base Procurement.................... 290
Transfer OCO to Base RDT&E............................... 290
Marine Corps facility sustainment increase for disaster
recovery............................................... 291
Air Force facility sustainment disaster recovery increase 291
Defense Security Cooperation Agency...................... 291
Iraq Security Cooperation................................ 292
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative................... 292
Transfer OCO to Base O&M................................. 292
Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip
Fund................................................... 293
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 295
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 295
Part I--United States Space Force............................ 295
United States Space Force (secs. 1601-1608).............. 295
Part II--Other Space Matters................................. 299
Repeal of requirement to establish Space Command as a
subordinate unified command of the United States
Strategic Command (sec. 1611).......................... 299
Program to enhance and improve launch support and
infrastructure (sec. 1612)............................. 299
Modification of enhancement of positioning, navigation,
and timing capacity (sec. 1613)........................ 301
Modification of term of Commander of Air Force Space
Command (sec. 1614).................................... 302
Annual report on Space Command and Control program (sec.
1615).................................................. 302
Requirements for phase 2 of acquisition strategy for
National Security Space Launch program (sec. 1616)..... 302
Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence--Related
Activities................................................. 303
Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence as Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and Security (sec. 1621).................. 303
Repeal of certain requirements relating to integration of
Department of Defense intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance capabilities (sec. 1622)................ 303
Improving the onboarding methodology for certain
intelligence personnel (sec. 1623)..................... 304
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency
activities on facilitating access to local criminal
records historical data (sec. 1624).................... 304
Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters....................... 304
Reorientation of Big Data Platform program (sec. 1631)... 304
Zero-based review of Department of Defense cyber and
information technology personnel (sec. 1632)........... 304
Study on improving cyber career paths in the Navy (sec.
1633).................................................. 305
Framework to enhance cybersecurity of the United States
defense industrial base (sec. 1634).................... 305
Role of Chief Information Officer in improving
enterprise-wide cybersecurity (sec. 1635).............. 306
Quarterly assessments of the readiness of cyber forces
(sec. 1636)............................................ 307
Control and analysis of Department of Defense data stolen
through cyberspace (sec. 1637)......................... 308
Accreditation standards and processes for cybersecurity
and information technology products and services (sec.
1638).................................................. 309
Extension of authorities for Cyberspace Solarium
Commission (sec. 1639)................................. 309
Modification of elements of assessment required for
termination of dual-hat arrangement for Commander of
the United States Cyber Command (sec. 1640)............ 309
Use of National Security Agency cybersecurity expertise
to support acquisition of commercial cybersecurity
products (sec. 1641)................................... 310
Study on future cyber warfighting capabilities of
Department of Defense (sec. 1642)...................... 311
Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for
cyber operations-peculiar capability development
projects (sec. 1643)................................... 311
Expansion of authority for access and information
relating to cyberattacks on Department of Defense
operationally critical contractors (sec. 1644)......... 312
Briefing on memorandum of understanding relating to joint
operational planning and control of cyber attacks of
national scale (sec. 1645)............................. 312
Study to determine the optimal strategy for structuring
and manning elements of the Joint Force Headquarters-
Cyber organizations, Joint Mission Operations Centers,
and Cyber Operations-Integrated Planning Elements (sec.
1646).................................................. 312
Cyber governance structures and Principal Cyber Advisors
on military cyber force matters (sec. 1647)............ 313
Designation of test networks for testing and
accreditation of cybersecurity products and services
(sec. 1648)............................................ 313
Consortia of universities to advise Secretary of Defense
on cybersecurity matters (sec. 1649)................... 313
Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces................................... 313
Modification of authorities relating to nuclear command,
control, and communications system (sec. 1661)......... 313
Expansion of officials required to conduct biennial
assessments of delivery platforms for nuclear weapons
and nuclear command and control system (sec. 1662)..... 314
Conforming amendment to Council on Oversight of the
National Leadership Command, Control, and
Communications System (sec. 1663)...................... 314
Prohibition on reduction of the intercontinental
ballistic missiles of the United States (sec. 1664).... 314
Briefing on long-range standoff weapon and sea-launched
cruise missile (sec. 1665)............................. 314
Sense of the Senate on industrial base for Ground-Based
Strategic Deterrent program (sec. 1666)................ 314
Sense of the Senate on nuclear deterrence commitments of
the United States (sec. 1667).......................... 315
Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs......................... 315
Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli
cooperative missile defense program co-development and
co-production (sec. 1671).............................. 315
Expansion of national missile defense policy and program
redesignation (sec. 1672).............................. 316
Acceleration of the deployment of persistent space-based
sensor architecture (sec. 1673)........................ 316
Nonstandard acquisition processes of Missile Defense
Agency (sec. 1674)..................................... 317
Plan for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (sec. 1675)......... 317
Report on improving ground-based midcourse defense
element of ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1676) 317
Sense of the Senate on recent Missile Defense Agency
tests (sec. 1677)...................................... 317
Sense of the Senate on missile defense technology
development priorities (sec. 1678)..................... 317
Publication of environmental impact statement prepared
for certain potential future missile defense sites
(sec. 1679)............................................ 318
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 318
Matters relating to military operations in the
information environment (sec. 1681).................... 318
Extension of authorization for protection of certain
facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft (sec.
1682).................................................. 318
Hard and deeply buried targets (sec. 1683)............... 318
Items of Special Interest.................................... 319
Acquisition plan for Space Command and Control program... 319
Addressing the Department of Defense's cyber red team
vulnerabilities........................................ 319
Airborne Launch Control System sustainment............... 320
Assessment of replacement of E-4B and E-6 aircraft....... 320
Assessment of the cybersecurity of Department of Defense
classified networks.................................... 320
Briefing on integration of commercial satellite
communications capabilities............................ 321
Briefing on Joint Cyber Command and Control program...... 321
Briefings on the status of replacement progress of the
mobile ground systems supporting the Space Based
Infrared Satellite system.............................. 322
Comptroller General assessment of cyber infrastructure
programs............................................... 322
Comptroller General report on readiness of the nuclear
command, control, and communications system............ 323
Comptroller General study on weapon system cybersecurity. 323
Coordination of election cybersecurity efforts........... 324
Cybersecurity of commercial clouds used by Department of
Defense................................................ 325
Cybersecurity of industrial control systems.............. 325
Declassification of near-peer adversaries' military
capabilities........................................... 326
Department of Defense endpoint management program........ 327
Foreign online influence operations...................... 327
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system enhancements....... 328
Independent evaluation of Air Force space command and
control enterprise program............................. 328
Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment system
and multi-domain sensors............................... 329
Light Detection and Ranging capabilities................. 329
Low Power Laser Demonstrator program..................... 329
National Security Agency Cyber Centers of Academic
Excellence............................................. 330
Nuclear Posture Review implementation.................... 331
Pilot program authority to enhance cybersecurity and
resiliency of critical infrastructure.................. 331
Reducing barriers to service in U.S. Space Force......... 331
Report on Mobile User Objective System................... 332
Report on using existing intelligence sensors for
ballistic missile defense.............................. 332
Security and resiliency of decision-making technologies.. 333
Social network analysis for counterterrorism............. 333
Software defined networking and network and cybersecurity
orchestration.......................................... 333
Space Fence Site 2....................................... 334
Space industrial base of the People's Republic of China.. 335
Status of Military Ground User Equipment receivers....... 335
Tactically responsive space launch operations............ 336
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense transition and
requirements........................................... 336
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 339
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 339
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 339
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 339
Effective date (sec. 2003)............................... 340
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 341
Summary.................................................. 341
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 341
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 341
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)........ 341
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2019 project (sec. 2104).......................... 341
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 343
Summary.................................................. 343
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 343
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 343
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 343
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 343
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 345
Summary.................................................. 345
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 345
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 345
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 345
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)... 345
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2015 project (sec. 2305).......................... 346
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2016 project (sec. 2306).......................... 346
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2017 project (sec. 2307).......................... 346
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2018 projects (sec. 2308).............................. 346
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2019 projects (sec. 2309)......................... 347
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 349
Summary.................................................. 349
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 349
Authorized Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment
Program projects (sec. 2402)........................... 349
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 349
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS................................ 351
Summary.................................................. 351
Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program......................................... 351
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 351
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 351
Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions............... 351
Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec.
2511).................................................. 351
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 353
Summary.................................................. 353
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 353
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 353
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 353
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 353
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 354
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 354
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 355
Summary and explanation of tables........................ 355
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)....................... 355
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and
closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)....................... 355
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS....... 357
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program.................... 357
Military installation resilience plans and projects of
Department of Defense (sec. 2801)...................... 357
Prohibition on use of funds to reduce air base resiliency
or demolish protected aircraft shelters in the European
theater without creating a similar protection from
attack (sec. 2802)..................................... 357
Prohibition on use of funds to close or return to the
host nation any existing air base (sec. 2803).......... 357
Increased authority for certain unspecified minor
military construction projects (sec. 2804)............. 357
Technical corrections and improvements to installation
resilience (sec. 2805)................................. 358
Subtitle B--Land Conveyances................................. 358
Release of interests retained in Camp Joseph T. Robinson,
Arkansas, for use of such land as a veterans cemetery
(sec. 2811)............................................ 358
Transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain
parcels of Federal land in Arlington, Virginia (sec.
2812).................................................. 358
Modification of requirements relating to land acquisition
in Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2813).............. 358
White Sands Missile Range Land Enhancements (sec. 2814).. 358
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 359
Equal treatment of insured depository institutions and
credit unions operating on military installations (sec.
2821).................................................. 359
Expansion of temporary authority for acceptance and use
of contributions for certain construction, maintenance,
and repair projects mutually beneficial to the
Department of Defense and Kuwait military forces (sec.
2822).................................................. 359
Designation of Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base
(sec. 2823)............................................ 359
Prohibition on use of funds to privatize temporary
lodging on installations of Department of Defense (sec.
2824).................................................. 360
Pilot program to extend service life of roads and runways
under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the
military departments (sec. 2825)....................... 360
Items of Special Interest.................................... 360
Briefing on laboratory military construction............. 360
Comptroller General review of privatized lodging program. 360
Defense Access Roads..................................... 361
Department of Defense disaster recovery.................. 362
Excess storage capacity at Army National Guard
installations.......................................... 362
Firearms training infrastructure......................... 363
Long-term modernization of Lincoln Laboratory............ 363
Report on Base Realignment Closure costs................. 364
Report on condition of facilities at Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps units at minority-serving
institutions........................................... 364
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 367
Summary.................................................. 367
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2901)................................... 367
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2902)................................... 367
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2903)................................... 367
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2904)....................... 367
Disaster recovery projects (sec. 2905)................... 367
Replenishment of certain military construction funds
(sec. 2906)............................................ 368
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2907).............. 368
TITLE XXX--MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REFORM................. 369
Definitions (sec. 3001).................................. 369
Subtitle A--Accountability and Oversight..................... 369
Tenant bill of rights for privatized military housing
(sec. 3011)............................................ 369
Designation of Chief Housing Officer for privatized
military housing (sec. 3012)........................... 369
Command oversight of military privatized housing as
element of performance evaluations (sec. 3013)......... 370
Consideration of history of landlord in contract renewal
process for privatized military housing (sec. 3014).... 370
Treatment of breach of contract for privatized military
housing (sec. 3015).................................... 370
Uniform code of basic standards for privatized military
housing and plan to conduct inspections and assessments
(sec. 3016)............................................ 371
Repeal of supplemental payments to lessors and
requirement for use of funds in connection with the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (sec. 3017).. 371
Standard for common credentials for health and
environmental inspectors of privatized military housing
(sec. 3018)............................................ 372
Improvement of privatized military housing (sec. 3019)... 372
Access to maintenance work order system of landlords of
privatized military housing (sec. 3020)................ 372
Access by tenants of privatized military housing to work
order system of landlord (sec. 3021)................... 373
Subtitle B--Prioritizing Families............................ 373
Dispute resolution process for landlord-tenant disputes
regarding privatized military housing and requests to
withhold payments (sec. 3031).......................... 373
Suspension of Resident Energy Conservation Program (sec.
3032).................................................. 373
Access by tenants to historical maintenance information
for privatized military housing (sec. 3033)............ 374
Prohibition on use of call centers outside the United
States for maintenance calls by tenants of privatized
military housing (sec. 3034)........................... 374
Radon testing for privatized military housing (sec. 3035) 374
Expansion of windows covered by requirement to use window
fall prevention devices in privatized military housing
(sec. 3036)............................................ 374
Requirements relating to move out and maintenance with
respect to privatized military housing (sec. 3037)..... 374
Subtitle C--Long-Term Quality Assurance...................... 375
Development of standardized documentation, templates, and
forms for privatized military housing (sec. 3041)...... 375
Council on privatized military housing (sec. 3042)....... 375
Requirements relating to management of privatized
military housing (sec. 3043)........................... 375
Requirements relating to contracts for privatized
military housing (sec. 3044)........................... 376
Withholding of incentive fees for landlords of privatized
military housing for failure to remedy a health or
environmental hazard (sec. 3045)....................... 376
Expansion of direct hire authority for Department of
Defense for childcare services providers for Department
child development centers to include direct hire
authority for installation military housing office
personnel (sec. 3046).................................. 377
Plan on establishment of Department of Defense
jurisdiction over off-base privatized military housing
(sec. 3047)............................................ 377
Subtitle D--Other Housing Matters............................ 377
Lead-based paint testing and reporting (sec. 3051)....... 377
Satisfaction survey for tenants of military housing (sec.
3052).................................................. 377
Information on legal services provided to members of the
Armed Forces harmed by health or environmental hazards
at military housing (sec. 3053)........................ 378
Mitigation of risks posed by certain items in military
family housing units (sec. 3054)....................... 378
Technical correction to certain payments for lessors of
privatized military housing (sec. 3055)................ 378
Pilot program to build and monitor use of single family
homes (sec. 3056)...................................... 378
Items of Special Interest.................................... 378
Compliance with housing laws............................. 378
Comptroller General review of Basic Allowance for Housing
rate determination process............................. 379
Consideration of privatized housing conditions in
evaluation of commanders and senior enlisted personnel. 380
Plan for management of privatized military housing units
if a contract relating to those housing units is
rescinded.............................................. 380
Referral to Department of Justice of allegations of
military housing fraud................................. 381
Report on service training for installation commanders... 381
Review of Air Force Civil Engineer Center organizational
structure.............................................. 382
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 383
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 383
Subtitle A--National Security Programs and Authorizations.... 383
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 383
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)................ 383
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 383
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)............................... 383
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 383
Technical corrections to National Nuclear Security
Administration Act and Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec.
3111).................................................. 383
National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System
(sec. 3112)............................................ 383
Contracting, program management, scientific, engineering,
and technical positions at National Nuclear Security
Administration (sec. 3113)............................. 384
Prohibition on use of laboratory-directed research and
development funds for general and administrative
overhead costs (sec. 3114)............................. 384
Prohibition on use of funds for advanced naval nuclear
fuel system based on low-enriched uranium (sec. 3115).. 384
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................ 385
Estimation of costs of meeting defense environmental
cleanup milestones required by consent orders (sec.
3121).................................................. 385
Extension of suspension of certain assessments relating
to nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3122)............... 385
Repeal of requirement for review relating to enhanced
procurement authority (sec. 3123)...................... 385
Determination of effect of treaty obligations with
respect to producing tritium (sec. 3124)............... 385
Assessment of high energy density physics (sec. 3125).... 385
Budget Items................................................. 386
Federal salaries......................................... 386
Technology maturation initiatives........................ 386
Stockpile Responsiveness Program......................... 386
Nonproliferation Stewardship Program..................... 386
Emergency Operations..................................... 387
Enterprise Assessments................................... 387
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal........................... 387
Items of Special Interest.................................... 388
Assessment of lithium sustainment program and production
project................................................ 388
Briefing on ability to meet requirements for plutonium
pit production......................................... 388
Comptroller General review of applicability of Section
809 Panel recommendations to the Department of Energy.. 389
Comptroller General review of DOE Order 140.1............ 390
Comptroller General study of radioactive waste at West
Valley, New York....................................... 390
Comptroller General to continue ongoing evaluation of the
Hanford Waste Treatment Plant.......................... 391
Plutonium science and metallurgy......................... 391
Report on the Department of Energy's Office of Legacy
Management............................................. 391
Report on the Department of Energy's tank closures....... 392
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 393
Authorization (sec. 3201)................................ 393
Improvement of management and organization of Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3202)............ 393
Membership of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(sec. 3203)............................................ 394
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 395
Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)...................... 395
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 397
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)... 397
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020.. 399
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 409
Procurement (sec. 4101).................................. 410
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4102).................................................. 456
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 477
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201).. 478
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)..................... 517
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 521
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301).................... 522
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency
operations (sec. 4302)................................. 544
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 557
Military personnel (sec. 4401)........................... 558
Military personnel for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4402)............................................ 559
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 561
Other authorizations (sec. 4501)......................... 562
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4502)............................................ 566
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 569
Military construction (sec. 4601)........................ 570
Military construction for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4602)............................................ 586
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 591
Department of Energy national security programs (sec.
4701).................................................. 592
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS......................................... 606
Departmental Recommendations............................. 606
Committee Action......................................... 606
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 609
Regulatory Impact........................................ 609
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 609

Calendar No. 114

116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 116-48

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

_______

June 11, 2019.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 1790]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill (S. 1790) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends
that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

This bill would:
(1) Authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2020;
(2) Authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2020;
(3) Authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2020;
(4) Impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) Impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) Authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2020; and
(7) Authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2020.

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW

For the past 58 consecutive years, Congress has fulfilled
its constitutional responsibility to ``provide for the common
defense'' by passing the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA). This annual legislation authorizes funding and provides
authorities for the U.S. military and other critical national
defense priorities, and ensures our troops have what they need
to defend our nation. On May 22, 2019, the Senate Armed
Services Committee voted overwhelmingly, 25-2, to advance the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2020 to the
Senate floor and keep our troops safe.
The committee takes seriously its obligation to national
security as well as to our men and women in uniform and their
families, who represent the best of our country. The NDAA
acknowledges their service and sacrifice, and seeks to improve
the quality of life for those who serve.
The committee markup of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020, supports a total of $750 billion for
national defense. The committee believes this authorization is
necessary to implement the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS)
and to compete, deter, and win in an era of long-term strategic
competition.
The committee markup:
Authorizes critical funding for the
Department of Defense (DOD) to provide resources needed
by combatant commands to implement the 2018 NDS and
compete, deter, and win in an era of long-term
strategic competition.
Ensures the Military Services have the
personnel, equipment, training, and organizational
structure to accelerate measurable readiness recovery
across the full range of assigned missions.
Ensures the long-term viability of the all-
volunteer force by improving the quality of life of the
men and women of the total force (Active Duty, National
Guard, and Reserve), and their families, including by
reforming privatized on-base housing.
Maintains maritime and air superiority by
focusing on continuous fifth generation procurement
growth, increasing the procurement of advanced
munitions, and addressing critical deficiencies in land
forces, especially long-range precision fires and air
and missile defense.
Augments the capability of the U.S. Armed
Forces and the security forces of allied and friendly
nations to counter and defeat near-peer adversaries,
violent extremist organizations, and other shared
threats to regional security, U.S. interests, and the
U.S. homeland.
Enhances deterrence by recapitalizing and
modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad; ensuring the
safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear
stockpile, delivery systems, and infrastructure;
increasing capability in theater and homeland missile
defense; and strengthening nonproliferation programs.
Drives DOD investment in next-generation
operational capabilities and advanced technologies that
will ensure U.S. military dominance, while protecting
and strengthening our National Security Innovation
Base.
Improves the ability of our Armed Forces to
counter threats and promote U.S. freedom of action in
the information domain, including space, cyber, and
electronic warfare.
Strengthens existing U.S. alliances and
partnerships, builds mutually beneficial new
partnerships, and leverages opportunities in
international cooperation to ensure U.S. success in
competition and conflict against other great powers.
Implements robust oversight of past year's
reforms of acquisition enterprise organizations,
policies, and programs, while authorizing more diverse
and flexible contracting approaches that enable timely
contract awards.
Ensures proper stewardship and
accountability for taxpayer dollars by promoting
aggressive review of DOD management policies, extract
efficiencies through improved business practices and/or
the termination of unnecessary, outdated, or redundant
programs, and exercising systematic oversight of the
defense audit.

Preamble to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020

The world is more unstable and dangerous than it has been
in recent memory. Our margin of military supremacy has eroded
and is undermined by new threats from strategic competitors
like China and Russia. At the same time, we are confronting
persistent threats from North Korea, Iran, and terrorist
organizations. Rapid technological advances have fundamentally
altered the nature of warfare, and years of sustained armed
conflict, underfunding, and budgetary instability have harmed
our military readiness and dulled our combat edge. Our
Congressional duty to provide for the security of our nation,
protect our values, and support those who defend them is all
the more important as the tide of war has risen rather than
receded. We must pivot to meet the needs of a nation
increasingly at risk.
The National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the NDS Commission
report established a comprehensive roadmap to bolster our
national security in light of this new challenge of strategic
competition. Last year's defense authorization legislation, the
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019, was the first NDAA to support the implementation of
this strategy, resulting in gains in readiness and improved
capabilities. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 keeps our Armed Forces on that trajectory, and builds
on the recognition of this new reality-strengthening our force,
investing in innovation, and improving the combat effectiveness
of the DOD.
The committee continues to prioritize the timely passage of
this legislation and predictable funding, completing its work
on the fiscal year 2020 NDAA just over two months after
receiving the administration's budget request. Our military
leaders have repeatedly stated that stable, on-time, and
adequate funding is key to implementing the recommendations of
the NDS Commission report. The report serves to provide sharp
guideposts to outfitting our Armed Forces with the resources
and authorities they need to advance U.S. national security
interests.
However, timely and sufficient funding alone will not fix
all of our security problems. We must establish clear
priorities and reinforce them with strategic investments to
pursue urgent change at significant scale. Difficult choices
must be made and priorities established, particularly related
to roles and missions, force employment, and resource
allocation.
With the NDS and NDS Commission Report as the framework,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
advances the following priorities:
(1) First, the NDAA invests in a lethal, ready all-
volunteer force. The committee's top priority remains
supporting the 2.15 million men and women who make up our all-
volunteer force, particularly those troops in harm's way. The
NDAA ensures that our warfighters will not only be equipped
with the best equipment and munitions, but also that our
military infrastructure supports the mission and a stable
quality of life for service members and their families. In
particular, the bill profoundly changes how on-base privatized
housing is managed, increasing accountability to our military
families, and guaranteeing future economic viability for the
program. As critical initiatives, the legislation also
increases employment opportunities for military spouses and
improves the availability of child care on installations.
(2) Second, the NDAA works to restore our combat advantage
through modernization, innovation, and cooperation. Our
military superiority can no longer be taken for granted and is
not guaranteed. For too many years, we assumed our equipment
was better than everyone else's-but it's simply not true.
Without increased investment, we risk falling behind, losing
our ability to successfully deter aggression from strategic
competitors, and inflicting lasting damage to our national
security. To meet urgent needs across operating domains, the
NDAA aligns service resources with the NDS-continuing to
rebuild readiness, optimizing the force for innovation and
effectiveness, and re-establishing warfighting dominance.
Therefore, the NDAA authorizes investments in critical
equipment, weapons, and missile defense platforms to improve
munitions that enhance lethality. It modernizes key
capabilities and increases preparedness for war.
This includes maintaining a safe, secure, sustainable, and
credible nuclear deterrent-updating and securing our stockpile
and infrastructure to prevent nuclear warfare and ensure
nuclear weapons do not end up in the hands of malign actors. No
one should doubt the capability or political will of the United
States.
The NDAA passed by the committee drives innovation by
authorizing funds and implementing policies to advance
technology development and next-generation capabilities,
including artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and
quantum computing. These investments will ensure our military
is not fighting tomorrow's wars with yesterday's weapons and
equipment.
As the global security dynamics shift, warfare has also
expanded to new frontiers. To meet growing threats in the space
domain, the NDAA establishes a U.S. Space Force as a new
component of the Air Force. Our adversaries have Space Forces--
we are behind. This new force will focus on cultivating a space
warfighting ethos, unify command of space operations and
activities, and improve acquisition policies for space programs
and systems,
Also a new frontier, the NDAA includes numerous provisions
to advance the DOD's cybersecurity strategy and address our
cyber warfighting capabilities. To reinforce our military
might, the NDAA supports programs and policies that will
cultivate key alliances and partnerships. These relationships
will help maintain a favorable balance of power against near-
peer adversaries and counter other growing threats.
(3) Finally, the NDAA continues efforts to improve
effectiveness and efficiency within the Pentagon. The DOD's
business operations provide the foundation for a responsive and
innovative military. Building upon several years of reform, the
NDAA continues to streamline operations-continuing acquisition
policy reform, recalibrating contract reform, and strengthening
program oversight. A more efficient bureaucracy will better
utilize the full value of every taxpayer dollar spent on
defense.
With the National Defense Strategy Commission Report as a
framework, the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization
Act keeps our Armed Forces on the trajectory established last
year-rebuilding readiness, improving lethality, investing in
innovation, and reforming the DOD. These efforts will reassert
our quantitative and qualitative military advantage and
revitalize American military power and supremacy in the new
landscape of global competition.

BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY
IMPLICATION

The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2020 was $741.6
billion. Of this amount, $544.6 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $23.2 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy (DOE), and $173.8 billion was requested for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO).
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $741.6 billion in fiscal year 2020, including
$642.5 billion for base DOD programs, $23.2 billion for
national security programs in the DOE, and $75.9 billion for
OCO.
The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2020 defense
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2020 and compares these amounts to the
request.
The second table summarizes the total budget authority
implication for national defense by including national defense
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the
defense committees or are already authorized.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for procurement activities at the levels
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.

Subtitle B--Army Programs

Sense of Senate on Army's approach to capability drops 1 and 2 of the
Distributed Common Ground System-Army program (sec. 111)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
Sense of the Senate on the Army's approach to capability drops
one and two of the Distributed Common Ground System-Army
program.
Authority of the Secretary of the Army to waive certain limitations
related to Distributed Common Ground System-Army Increment 1
(sec. 112)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 113(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) by striking ``Secretary
of Defense'' and inserting ``Secretary of the Army.''
The waiver process for capability drops into the
Distributed Common Ground System-Army system architecture is
overly time-consuming. Capability drop one required over 12
months of processing time for approval. These delays slow
progress and ultimately degrade the warfighter's ability to
analyze and act on time-sensitive intelligence.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the waiver
authority be given to the Secretary of the Army for faster
processing and approval.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Modification of prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port
waterborne security barriers (sec. 121)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 130 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) to
extend the prohibition on availability of funds for Navy port
waterborne security barriers through fiscal year 2020 and would
require the Secretary of the Navy to notify the congressional
defense committees if exigent circumstances, under which an
exception is granted, are deemed to exist.

Capabilities based assessment for naval vessels that carry fixed-wing
aircraft (sec. 122)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a capabilities-based
assessment to clarify the future requirements for naval vessels
that carry fixed-wing aircraft.
The committee notes that the budget request's proposal to
retire the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) early would yield a
force with 10 or fewer aircraft carriers for more than 20
years. The budget request also includes a 7-year gap until the
funding of the next amphibious assault ship, LHA-9, which will
likely result in a production break. The committee is concerned
that both the CVN-75 and LHA-9 proposals are contrary to
current Navy force structure requirements and will result in
significant negative impacts for the shipbuilding industrial
base.
The committee also notes that the Under Secretary of the
Navy stated in February 2019, ``If $13 billion is unaffordable
. . . what's the next carrier look like? Is it going to be as
advanced as [the USS Gerald R. Ford] or is it going to be
smaller? . . . We don't know the answers to that, but we're
looking at those.''
The committee also notes that all three future fleet
platform architecture studies required by section 1067 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) recommended that the Navy pursue a class of
aircraft carriers smaller than the Ford-class. The committee
believes that smaller aircraft carriers could both increase
aircraft carrier capacity and provide a more efficient means to
conduct a range of missions with lower sortie requirements,
including support for amphibious operations.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to consult the fleet architecture studies, as well as the
report on alternative aircraft carrier options required by
section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), and initiate a
capabilities-based assessment to begin the process of
identifying requirements for the naval vessels that will carry
fixed-wing aircraft following CVN-81 and LHA-9.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
Ford-class aircraft carrier cost limitation baselines in title
10, United States Code, and repeal a superseded provision.
The committee notes that cost limitation baselines for
Ford-class aircraft carriers were first enacted in section 122
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). These cost limitation
baselines have been amended in public law three times to
account for cost estimate adjustments. The committee further
notes that the Secretary of the Navy raised the cost limitation
baseline for the CVN-78 to $13.0 billion in May 2018.
The committee believes that Ford-class cost limitation
baselines should now be adjusted to reflect the Navy's latest
cost estimates for each of the four ships in the class and that
the cost limitation baseline for each such ship should be
codified in title 10, United States Code, due to the long-term
nature of aircraft carrier construction and the benefits of
greater clarity in oversight requirements.
The provision therefore would: (1) Update the cost
limitation baseline for each Ford-class aircraft carrier; (2)
Require notification of the congressional defense committees at
least 30 days prior to the Secretary of the Navy's adjusting a
limitation amount; (3) Eliminate adjustments that would be
based on non-recurring engineering changes that are no longer
applicable; and (4) Eliminate reporting requirements related to
CVN-79, which would be maintained elsewhere.

Design and construction of amphibious transport dock designated LPD-31
(sec. 124)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund
a contract for design and construction of the amphibious
transport dock designated LPD-31.
The committee notes that in testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee on April 7, 2019, the Secretary of the
Navy and Chief of Naval Operations supported incremental
funding authority for LPD-31.

LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship Program (sec. 125)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund
a contract for design and construction of the LHA replacement
ship designated LHA-9.
The committee notes that in testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee on April 7, 2019, the Secretary of the
Navy and Chief of Naval Operations supported incremental
funding authority for LHA-9.
The provision would also repeal section 125 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364).

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds from being used to exceed the total procurement quantity
listed in revision five of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
acquisition strategy unless the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment submits to the congressional
defense committees a certification.
The committee notes that the Navy force structure
assessment requirement and LCS acquisition strategy total
procurement quantity of 32 LCSs was met in fiscal year 2018.
Three additional LCSs were authorized and appropriated by the
Congress in fiscal year 2019.
Accordingly, the provision would require that, before
further LCS procurement, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment certify to the congressional
defense committees that such procurement: (1) Is in the
national security interests of the United States; (2) Will not
result in exceeding the low rate initial production quantity
approved in the LCS acquisition strategy in effect at the time
of the certification; and (3) Is necessary to maintain a full
and open competition for the guided missile frigate (FFG(X))
with a single source award in fiscal year 2020.

Limitation on the next new class of Navy large surface combatants (sec.
127)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that design changes identified during the full duration of the
combat system ship qualification trials and operational test
periods of the first Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the
Flight III configuration be incorporated prior to Milestone B
approval for the next new class of Navy large surface
combatants.
The provision would also require that the final results of
test programs of engineering development models or prototypes
be incorporated into the Navy large surface combatant program
prior to Milestone B approval.

Refueling and complex overhauls of the USS John C. Stennis and USS
Harry S. Truman (sec. 128)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to carry out the nuclear refueling and
complex overhaul of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) and USS
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75).
The provision would also authorize the use of incremental
funding for a period not to exceed 6 years after advance
procurement funds for each nuclear refueling and complex
overhaul effort are first obligated.
The committee notes that in testimony before the Armed
Services Committee of the Senate on March 14, 2019, the Acting
Secretary of Defense stated, ``[The proposal not to refuel the
USS Harry S. Truman] represents some of the strategic choices
that we've made in this year's budget. . . . The funds we freed
up from making these decisions are invested in the future
force.'' The committee understands that this desired future
force includes offensively armed unmanned or optionally-manned
surface vessels, for which the budget request includes more
than $2.7 billion to procure in fiscal years 2020 through 2024.
While recognizing the need to modernize the U.S. military
to support the National Defense Strategy, the committee has not
received adequate justification to support a shift in funding
from refueling an aircraft carrier to procuring unproven
systems. Specifically, the committee is unaware of: a new joint
warfighting plan that concluded that the Nation needs one fewer
aircraft carrier; proven substitute capabilities for the combat
power and reach of the Truman and its air wing; unmanned
surface and undersea systems proven to be operationally
effective and suitable in the threat environment; or a change
in the Chief of Naval Operations' requirement for 12 aircraft
carriers.
The committee is also unaware of administration proposals
to change section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, which
requires the Navy to maintain not fewer than 11 operational
aircraft carriers, or section 1025 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91),
which made it the policy of the United States to achieve a 355-
ship Navy comprised of the ``optimal mix'' of ships as soon as
practicable. The ``optimal mix'' is defined as the mix of ships
in the Navy's 355-ship requirement, including 12 aircraft
carriers.
The committee also notes that the Department of Defense
estimates that not refueling the Truman would save
approximately $3.5 billion plus annual operating costs. The
committee is unclear as to how these savings compare to the
development, procurement, and annual operating costs of the
systems that are envisioned to provide equivalent or better
capability as compared to the Truman and its air wing. The
committee is also unaware of the schedule necessary to field
such systems.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Navy's ``Report
to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of
Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020'' states, ``Unmanned and
optionally-manned systems are not accounted for in the overall
battle force[.] . . . The physical challenges of extended
operations at sea across the spectrum of competition and
conflict, the concepts of operations for these platforms, and
the policy challenges associated with employing deadly force
from autonomous vehicles must be well understood prior to
replacing accountable battle force ships.'' The committee does
not believe that this standard has been met regarding the
budget request's Truman proposal.

Report on carrier wing composition (sec. 129)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, no later than May 1, 2020, on the optimal
composition of the carrier air wing in 2030 and 2040, as well
as alternative force design concepts. The provision would also
require the Secretary to provide a briefing on the report no
later than March 1, 2020, to the congressional defense
committees.
The committee is concerned, based on a number of
independent analyses, that the Navy's current stated goal of a
50/50 mix of 4th and 5th generation aircraft for the future
carrier air wing will not be sufficient to meet the
requirements of the National Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the report required by this provision would
include: (1) Analysis and justification used to reach the 50/50
mix of 4th and 5th generation aircraft for 2030; (2) Analysis
and justification for the optimal mix of carrier aircraft for
2040; and (3) A plan for incorporating unmanned aerial vehicles
and associated communication capabilities to effectively
implement the future force design.

Subtitle D--Air Force Programs

Requirement to align Air Force fighter force structure with National
Defense Strategy and reports (sec. 141)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to align the fighter force structure
acquisition strategy with the results of the independent
studies required by section 1064 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and
to transmit the new strategy in a report to the congressional
defense committees no later than March 1, 2020. The committee
is concerned that the Air Force's current fighter force
structure acquisition strategy does not comport with multiple
reports required by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 nor the service's own stated requirements to
meet the National Defense Strategy. The provision would
prohibit the Air Force's deviation from this strategy in its
acquisition programs and related force structure until the
Secretary of the Air Force receives a waiver and justification
from the Secretary of Defense and until 30 days after notifying
the congressional defense committees of the proposed deviation.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish an agile software development
activity as an alternative for the F-35 Autonomic Logistics
Information System (ALIS). The committee is encouraged by the
ongoing efforts to incorporate agile software development into
the ALIS programs of record (ALIS-next and Madhatter) while
also maintaining traditional development in order to avoid risk
to the overall program timeline. The provision would separate
the budget lines and require a competitive analysis of the
efforts between ALIS, ALIS-next, and Madhatter by the Secretary
of Defense in order to evaluate transition opportunities and
timelines.
Finally, the provision would direct the Secretary of the
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force,
to brief the congressional defense committees on the findings
of the competitive analysis no later than September 30, 2020.

Report on feasibility of multiyear contract for procurement of JASSM-ER
missiles (sec. 143)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Air Force to produce and submit a report assessing the
feasibility of entering into a multi-year contract for the
procurement of the JASSM-ER. The provision would require the
Air Force to examine multiple multi-year contract scenarios,
including one in which the Air Force would procure an annual
quantity of 550 missiles for 5 years. The committee notes that
the Air Force requirement for the JASSM-ER has recently
increased. Further, the industrial base has recently expanded
the capacity of its production facility to 550 missiles per
year in order to meet the increased requirements of the Air
Force.
The committee notes that multi-year contracts can provide
significant cost savings and stability in funding over multiple
years. Therefore, the report would include assessments of the
impacts on: the cost of the missile, the industrial base, the
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, and future development or
modification requirements for the JASSM-ER.

Air Force aggressor squadron modernization (sec. 144)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on Air Force aggressor
squadron modernization.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Air Force to provide a plan on the Combat Rescue Helicopter
fielding.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a Military Type
Certification for AT-6 and A-29 Light Attack Experimentation
Aircraft.

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

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funding of any current or future Department of Defense (DOD)
communications programs of record that do not meet certain
resiliency requirements. The committee is concerned that, in
the face of great power competition, the DOD has not assured
servicemembers' ability to communicate and share data securely
and consistently in a contested environment.
The committee defines these program resiliency requirements
as features that: 1) Deny geo-location of a transmission that
would allow enemy targeting of the force; 2) Securely
communicate classified information in a jamming environment of
like-echelon forces; and 3) Utilize a waveform that is made
available in the DOD Waveform Information Repository.
The committee understands that there may be very limited
cases where DOD communications equipment will be used to
communicate in a garrison or peacetime situation and not in
combat environments. Therefore, the provision would allow the
Secretaries of the military departments to waive the
aforementioned requirements for a system with a certification
that the system does not require resiliency due to its expected
use.

F-35 sustainment cost (sec. 152)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to provide quarterly
sustainment cost data, as part of the JPO quarterly briefings
to the congressional defense committees. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense is making force
structure decisions based on sustainment cost data that do not
easily provide the user with valid comparable metrics.
Therefore, the requested information should compare, in an
itemized format, the cost of legacy aircraft to that of the F-
35 program based on a standardized set of criteria.
The provision also requires the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Sustainment to: (1) Develop a plan for
achieving significant reductions in the costs to operate and
maintain the F-35 aircraft; (2) Submit a report on that plan;
and (3) Provide quarterly updates on the progress of
implementing the plan.

Economic order quantity contracting authority for F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter program (sec. 153)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to award F-35 contracts to procure
material and equipment in economic order quantities for fiscal
year 2021 (Lot 15) through fiscal year 2023 (Lot 17). The
committee supports the Department of Defense's planning for a
multi-year procurement for production Lots 15, 16, and 17.

Repeal of tactical unmanned vehicle common data link requirement (sec.
154)

The committee recommends a provision that would strike
section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163). The committee is
concerned that the standards set in the section 141 requirement
do not keep pace with the current high threat environment and
is thus out of step with the National Defense Strategy. The
repeal would help the Services form an overall architecture for
communications that is more resilient and allows for the
inclusion and connection of manned and unmanned aircraft and
weapons.

Budget Items

Army

Utility fixed wing aircraft

The budget request included $16.0 million in line number 2
of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for utility fixed wing
aircraft.
The committee notes that line number 2 of APA for the
remainder of the future years defense program contains no
funding for the program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.0
million in line number 2 of APA for the procurement of utility
fixed wing aircraft.

AH-64 Apache Block IIIB New Build

The budget request included $0.0 million in line number 10
of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for AH-64 Apache Block
IIIB New Build.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to modernize and equip both the active component and
the Army National Guard with the most advanced and capable
attack helicopters in support of the National Defense Strategy.
Consequently, the Army should field the Block IIIB aircraft as
quickly as possible across the 24 attack battalions in the
active component and the Army National Guard.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $105.0
million in line number 10 of APA for the procurement of three
AH-64 Apache Block IIIB New Build aircraft.

UH-60M Blackhawk

The budget request included $1.4 billion in line number 12
of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for 73 UH-60M Blackhawk
aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to field the most advanced and capable utility
helicopters in support of the National Defense Strategy.
However, the committee is concerned about the utility
helicopter industrial base and the dramatic downturn in
production of UH-60M aircraft through the proposed future years
defense program. Further, the committee believes that the Army
should take advantage of the current multiyear contract that
will expire in fiscal year 2021 and more equitably distribute
procurement to limit a steep production cut from fiscal year
2020 to fiscal year 2021.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $140.0
million for 7 active component aircraft in line number 12 of
APA for the procurement of UH-60M aircraft.

UH-60V Conversion

The budget request included $169.2 million in line number
14 of Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for UH-60 Blackhawk L
and V Models.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Army's
efforts to field the most advanced and capable utility
helicopters for the Army National Guard in support of the
National Defense Strategy. As such, the Army should accelerate
the conversion of Blackhawks to the upgraded V model, which
provides enhanced situational awareness, as quickly as possible
to optimize training and reduce operation and sustainment
costs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0
million in line number 14 of APA for the conversion of 8
additional UH-60V aircraft.

Interim Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2

The budget request contained $0.0 million in line number 4
of Missile Procurement, Army, for Indirect Fire Protection
Capability (IFPC) Increment 2.
The committee notes that, while the Army in February 2019
issued a letter of intent to procure two batteries of Iron Dome
to meet the requirement articulated in section 112 of the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-232) for an interim cruise missile defense
capability, this decision was predicated on submission and
approval of an above threshold reprogramming (ATR) by mid-April
2019. Because of the delay in submission of the ATR to the
congressional defense committees, the committee is concerned
that the Army will be unable to meet the statutory requirement
for interim base defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a
realignment that would support procurement of two Iron Dome
batteries with fiscal year 2020 funds as well as a realignment
elsewhere in this report of research, development, test, and
evaluation funding to support the procurement. The committee
notes that, should the ATR be fully approved before the end of
fiscal year 2019, this realignment would no longer be
necessary.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $229.9
million in line number 4 of Missile Procurement, Army, for IFPC
Increment 2.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army procurement

The budget request did not contain any funding in Missile
Procurement, Army, for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) system.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its
views regarding the transition of the THAAD program from the
Missile Defense Agency to the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $425.9
million in line number 5 of Missile Procurement, Army.

Stryker lethality

The budget request included $144.4 million in line number 3
of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for Stryker
modifications.
The Army also identified on its unfunded priority list a
shortfall in funding of $249.2 million in line number 3 of
WTCV, Army, to fund Stryker lethality upgrades.
The committee acknowledges the need to increase Stryker
lethality with a 30mm gun in order to improve standoff and
survivability and retain overmatch in support of the National
Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $249.2
million in line number 3 of WTCV, Army.

Bradley program

The budget request included $638.8 million in line number 5
of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the
procurement of upgrades to the family of Bradley Fighting
Vehicles.
The committee strongly supports the Bradley A4 upgrade
program, which is essential to ensure that the armored brigade
combat team remains relevant for the next 3 decades. However,
the committee notes that, according to budget documents
provided by the Department of the Army, the program is
historically under-executing.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.0
million in line number 5 of WTCV, Army.

Abrams upgrade program

The budget request included $1.8 billion in line number 14
of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), Army, for the
upgrade of 165 Abrams tanks to the M1A2 SEPv3.
The M1A2 SEPv3 program is vital to the lethality and
survivability of the Army's armored brigade combat team. The
M1A2 SEPv3 incorporates multiple improvements such as: turret
and hull armor upgrades for enhanced crew survivability; the
Total Integrated Engine Revitalization program and upgraded
transmission for improved power pack reliability and
durability; improved computer systems including
microprocessors, color flat panel displays, and memory
capacity; and Block 1 second generation Forward Looking Infra-
Red technology. The committee strongly supports the Abrams
Upgrade Program and its alignment to the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee believes that funding could be
better balanced throughout the future years defense program to
reduce industrial base turbulence.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.0
million in line number 14 of WTCV, Army.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

The budget request included $996.0 million in line number 6
of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of 2,530
Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV).
The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $4.5
million from line number 6 of OPA to PE 65812A in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, in order to complete
the developmental portion of the Training, Aids, Devices,
Simulators and Simulation Hands-On Trainers requirement for the
JLTV.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.5
million in line number 6 of OPA.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

The budget request included $996.0 million in line 6 of
Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the procurement of 2,530
Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV).
The JLTV is capable of performing multiple mission roles
and is designed to provide protected, sustained, and networked
mobility for personnel and payloads across the full range of
military operations.
However, the committee believes that the Army should make a
full rate production decision as soon as possible. Therefore,
the committee recommends a decrease of $35.0 million in line 6
of OPA.

Q53 extended range radar

The budget request included $16.4 million in line number
100 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for counterfire radars.
The Army identified in its unfunded priority list a
shortfall in funding of $62.5 million in line number 100 of OPA
to fund the Q53 extended range radar.
The committee acknowledges the need to improve current
radar systems with gallium-nitride technology to extend the
range capabilities for indirect fire units in support of the
National Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $62.5
million to line number 100 of OPA.

Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army

The budget request included $18.7 million in line number
109 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Integrated
Personnel and Pay System--Army.
The committee is concerned about unjustified cost growth
and poor business process reengineering.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $18.7
million in line number 109 of OPA.

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

The budget request included $139.3 million in line number
113 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Automated Data
Processing Equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in
line number 113 of OPA to support life-cycle replacement of
command, control, communication, computer, and intelligence
systems and infrastructure at the Joint Intelligence Operations
Center Europe Analytic Center at RAF Molesworth, United
Kingdom.

Army contract writing system

The budget request included $15.0 million in line number
116 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Army Contract
Writing System.
The committee remains concerned about duplication among the
Services in contract writing systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0
million in line number 116 of OPA.

Robotics and Applique Systems

The budget request included $101.1 million in line number
138 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Robotics and Applique
Systems.
The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $12.8
million from PE 65053A within Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Army, to line number 138 of OPA for Ground
Robotics, Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET) in
order to accelerate the production and fielding of the S-MET.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.8
million in line number 138 of OPA.

Navy

F-35C

The budget request included $2.3 billion in line number 3
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 20 F-35 aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Navy's and
Marine Corps' efforts to modernize and equip themselves with
the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the
National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned
about the quantity and timing of procurement of fifth
generation aircraft and understands that the Chief of Naval
Operations has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded
priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $215.0
million in line number 3 of APN for the procurement of 2
additional F-35C aircraft.

F-35B

The budget request included $1.3 billion in line number 5
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 10 F-35 aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Marine
Corps' efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most
advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National
Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft
and understands that the Marine Corps has placed additional
aircraft on its unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $249.1
million in line number 5 of APN for the procurement of 2
additional F-35B aircraft.

F-5 aircraft procurement

The budget request included $39.7 million in line number 22
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 22 F-5 aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Department
of Defense's efforts to increase adversary air training
capacity for the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the committee
is concerned that the purchase of used third generation
aircraft will not address the advanced training requirements
laid out in the National Defense Strategy and could be met by
the continued use of contracted adversary and close air
support.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $39.7
million in line number 22 of APN.

F-35B Spares

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 67
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for aircraft spares and
repair parts.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Navy's and
Marine Corps' efforts to modernize and equip themselves with
the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the
National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned
about the quantity and timing of procurement of fifth
generation aircraft and understands that the Chief of Naval
Operations has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded
priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.9
million in line number 67 of APN for spares.

F-35C Spares

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 67
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for spares and repair
parts.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Navy's and
Marine Corps' efforts to modernize and equip themselves with
the most advanced and capable aircraft in support of the
National Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned
about the quantity and timing of procurement of fifth
generation aircraft and understands that the Chief of Naval
Operations has placed additional aircraft on his unfunded
priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.6
million in line number 67 of APN.

F-35B Engine

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 67
of Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for 10 F-35 aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Marine
Corps' efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most
advanced and capable aircraft in support of the National
Defense Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft
and understands that the Marine Corps has placed an additional
engine on its unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $28.8
million in line number 67 of APN for the procurement of 1
additional F-35B engine.

Tomahawk

The budget request included no funding in line number 3 of
Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for Tomahawk.
The committee notes that the Department of the Navy's
original plan was to re-certify the existing inventory of
Tomahawk missiles. Despite investment to facilitate the
production line's transitioning from production to re-
certification, the Navy is now requesting to re-start the
Tomahawk production line. The committee is concerned that this
reversal in acquisition strategy does not have a thorough plan
or requirement.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $56.3
million in line number 3 of WPN for test equipment and support
of concurrent production and re-certification activities and
encourages the Department of Navy to provide an updated plan
for the Tomahawk missile.

LCS Over-the-Horizon missile

The budget request included no funding in line number 19 of
Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS) Over-the-Horizon (OTH) Missile.
The committee notes that the OTH missile acquisition
strategy is accelerated and contains unnecessary risk.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0
million in line number 19 of WPN for the LCS OTH Missile.

MK-48 torpedo

The budget request included no funding in line number 29 of
Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN), for the MK-48 Torpedo.
The Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priorities list
requested an increase in procurement by 13 torpedoes to
maximize the production line.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0
million for line number 29 of WPN for the MK-48 Torpedo.

Columbia-class submarine advance procurement

The budget request included $1.7 billion in line number 1
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Columbia-class
submarine advance procurement.
The committee believes that expanding the capabilities of
the second- and third-tier contractors in the submarine
industrial base should lead to greater cost savings and
improved efficiency as production increases to meet the
Columbia-class procurement schedule and higher requirement for
Virginia-class attack submarines in the Navy's latest Force
Structure Assessment.
The committee notes that the budget request includes some
funding for submarine industrial base expansion to ensure that
second- and third-tier contractors are able to meet increased
production requirements. The committee understands that an
additional $125.0 million could be executed to further address
such requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $125.0
million in line number 1 of SCN for Columbia-class submarine
advance procurement.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to notify
the congressional defense committees, in writing, within 30
days of obligating funds provided for submarine industrial base
expansion. The notification shall include: obligation date,
contractor name or names, location, description of the
shortfall to be addressed, actions to be undertaken, desired
end state, usable end items to be procured, period of
performance, dollar amount, projected associated savings
including business case analysis if applicable, contract name,
and contract number.

Carrier replacement program

The budget request included $2.3 billion in line number 2
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for the carrier
replacement program.
The committee notes that the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232) authorized the aircraft carrier designated CVN-81.
Therefore, the committee recommends a quantity decrease
from 1 to 0 in line number 2 of SCN for the carrier replacement
program.

Virginia-class submarine program

The budget request included $7.2 billion in line number 3
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class
submarines.
The committee notes that the typical procurement funding
profile for Virginia-class submarines consists of 2 years of
advance procurement followed by 1 year of full funding
procurement. The committee further notes that the budget
request's proposed procurement of a third submarine (SSN-812)
includes funds only in fiscal year 2020 and is underfunded by
$667.0 million. Based partially on this funding approach, SSN-
812 is scheduled to be delivered after the 2 submarines planned
to be procured in fiscal year 2023, requiring, in effect, 3
years of advance procurement and 1 year of full funding.
The committee also understands that the Navy is considering
a significant design change for SSN-812, which would require
approximately $1.2 billion in additional funding, potentially
bringing the total cost of SSN-812 to $5.0 billion with an
unfunded liability of more than $1.8 billion as compared to the
budget request.
The committee is concerned that the budget request for SSN-
812 is significantly underfunded, departs from the traditional
funding profile for attack submarines, may include a
significant design change not reviewed as part of this budget
request, and does not account for the effect of SSN-812's
increased demand on critical suppliers already struggling to
meet existing Navy procurement plans.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit an updated SSN-812 acquisition strategy to the
congressional defense committees concurrent with the Navy's
fiscal year 2021 budget request. This strategy shall include an
updated Component Cost Estimate, design changes that depart
from the Block V Virginia-class submarine design, and an
assessment of the effect SSN-812 will have on critical
suppliers.
Additionally, the committee is concerned that the budget
request's proposal to remove the Virginia Payload Module (VPM)
from SSN-804 would introduce excessive operational and
acquisition risk as the Navy seeks to replace the strike
capacity of the retiring Ohio-class guided missile submarines
with VPM on Virginia-class submarines.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0
billion for SSN-812 and an increase of $522.1 million for SSN-
804 VPM, for a net decrease of $2.5 billion, in line number 3
of SCN for Virginia-class submarines.

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement

The budget request included $2.8 billion in line number 4
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class
submarine advance procurement.
The committee notes that attack submarines provide critical
capabilities necessary to execute the National Defense
Strategy. The committee is concerned that, under current plans,
the Navy will not meet its requirement of 66 attack submarines
until fiscal year 2048.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5
billion in line number 4 of SCN for Virginia-class submarine
advance procurement.

Refueling and complex overhauls of aircraft carriers

The budget request included $647.9 million in line number 5
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for refueling and
complex overhauls (RCOH) of aircraft carriers.
The committee notes unjustified cost growth from the CVN-73
RCOH to the CVN-74 RCOH in basic construction/conversion and
ordnance.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million in line number 5 of SCN for refueling and complex
overhauls of aircraft carriers.

Refueling and complex overhaul advance procurement

The budget request included no funding in line number 6 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for refueling and
complex overhaul (RCOH) advance procurement.
The committee does not support the budget request's
proposal to not refuel the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75).
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.9
million to restore the CVN-75 RCOH in line number 6 of SCN for
refueling and complex overhaul advance procurement.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

The budget request included $5.1 billion in line number 8
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer procurement.
The committee notes that the budget request includes
procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which is
one additional destroyer in fiscal year 2020 as compared to
last year's request. The committee has not received sufficient
justification for the unit cost increases of the fiscal year
2020 destroyers, as compared to last year's request. In
addition, the committee notes that this program has available
prior years funds, which are excess to need.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0
million in line number 8 of SCN.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement

The budget request included $224.0 million in line number 9
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-
class destroyer advance procurement.
The committee notes that the Navy future years defense
program includes procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers in fiscal year 2021, which would be procured using a
multiyear procurement contract. The committee understands that
advance procurement of long lead time material could reduce
component costs and enable optimal ship construction intervals.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $260.0
million in line number 9 of SCN.

LPD-class amphibious transport ship

The budget request included no funding in line number 12 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of LPD
Flight II-class amphibious transport ships.
The committee notes that the Navy has identified LPD-30,
which was authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 2018, as
the first Flight II LPD. In the fiscal year 2019 budget
request, the Navy planned to procure the next Flight II LPD,
LPD-31, in fiscal year 2020. The committee is concerned that
the fiscal year 2020 budget request's delay of procurement of
LPD-31 to fiscal year 2021 could result in production
inefficiency, increased cost, and delay in reaching the Navy's
requirement for 38 amphibious ships.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $525.0
million in line number 12 of SCN for incremental funding of the
amphibious transport ship designated LPD-31.
The committee's intent is for the Navy to use the $350.0
million appropriated in SCN line number 13 in fiscal year 2019
and additional fiscal year 2020 funds in SCN line number 12 to
procure LPD-31 long-lead material and start construction as
efficiently as possible. Consistent with the budget request,
the committee expects the Navy to request the balance of costs
for LPD-31 in fiscal year 2021.

LPD-class amphibious transport ship advance procurement

The budget request included $247.1 million in line number
13 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for advance
procurement of LPD Flight II-class amphibious transport ships.
The committee recommends transferring the funds requested
in line number 13 of SCN to line number 12 of SCN to support
incremental funding of the amphibious transport ship designated
LPD-31.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $247.1
million in line number 13 of SCN for advance procurement of LPD
Flight II-class amphibious transport ships.

LHA replacement amphibious assault ship

The budget request included no funding in line number 15 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of LHA
replacement amphibious assault ships.
The committee remains concerned with the Navy procurement
profile for large deck amphibious assault ships, which includes
a span of 7 years until the next large deck amphibious assault
ship (LHA-9) would be procured in fiscal year 2024.
The committee notes that efficiencies could be gained by
reducing this span, including steadier workflow with an
increased learning curve, material and equipment suppliers with
more predictable delivery contracts, and a more effective
continuous improvement schedule.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to accelerate
procurement of LHA-9, including putting the $356.0 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2019 for this ship on contract to
procure long lead-time material as soon as possible and
leveraging the incremental funding authority provided elsewhere
in this Act to start construction and build LHA-9 as
efficiently as possible.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $650.0
million in line number 15 of SCN.

Outfitting

The budget request included $754.7 million in line number
23 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for outfitting.
Based on planned delivery dates, the committee notes that
post-delivery funding is early-to-need for LCS-21 ($5.0
million). The committee also notes the unjustified outfitting
cost growth for SSN-793, SSN-794, SSN-795, and SSN-796 ($20.0
million). The committee further notes unjustified post-delivery
cost growth for DDG-1000 ($25.0 million).
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million in line number 23 of SCN.

Service craft

The budget request included $56.3 million in line number 25
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for service craft.
In order to increase training opportunities for Surface
Warfare Officer candidates from all accession sources, the
committee believes that the Navy should replace the six YP-676
class craft slated for disposal with upgraded YP-703 class
craft that incorporate modernization, training, and
habitability improvements derived from lessons learned with
existing YP-703 craft.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to release a
request for proposals for the detail design and construction of
upgraded YP-703 class craft not later than fiscal year 2020.
The committee notes that the Navy's current cost estimate for
acquisition of the first upgraded YP-703 class craft is $25.5
million.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.5
million in line number 25 of SCN.

Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF 14) conversion

The budget request included $55.7 million in line number 28
of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for completion of
prior year shipbuilding programs.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations'
unfunded priority list states that additional funding could
provide for the conversion of an Expeditionary Fast Transport
(T-EPF 14) into an Expeditionary Medical Transport to better
fulfill distributed maritime medical requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.0
million in line number 28 of SCN.

Ship to shore connector advance procurement

The budget request included no funding in line number 29 of
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for ship to shore
connector advance procurement.
The committee understands that additional funding could
provide needed stability for certain suppliers in the ship to
shore connector program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.4
million in line number 29 of SCN.

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

The budget request included $31.6 million in line number 2
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for surface combatant hull,
mechanical, and electrical equipment.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations'
unfunded priority list states that additional funding could
provide for reliability upgrades to the Integrated Bridge and
Navigation and associated systems, including the addition of
physical throttles to the ship control console, a voyage data
recorder, and software upgrades to the steering and propulsion
control system.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.0
million in line number 2 of OPN.

Expeditionary mine countermeasures

The budget request included $71.2 million in line number 20
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for underwater explosive
ordnance disposal programs.
The committee notes that the Mark 18 unmanned underwater
vehicle (UUV) program is proven and remains the only mine
countermeasures (MCM) UUV program with Milestone C approval and
in full rate production.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Navy has a
validated need for eight additional expeditionary MCM (ExMCM)
companies beyond the eight already outfitted. The committee
further understands that $11.0 million in additional funding
could outfit 4 additional ExMCM companies with the full
complement of Mark 18 UUVs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0
million in line number 20 of OPN.

Littoral Combat Ship mine countermeasures mission modules

The budget request included $197.1 million in line number
30 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of
Littoral Combat Ship mine countermeasures mission module
equipment.
The committee notes that the Navy is requesting funding to
purchase equipment that has not yet undergone operational
testing, which is an approach that, as the Government
Accountability Office has shown, leads to cost growth and
schedule delays. The committee believes that the following
requested systems would constitute excessive procurement ahead
of satisfactory testing: 6 unmanned surface vehicle and
minesweeping payload delivery systems, 4 minehunting payload
delivery systems (new), 3 minehunting payload delivery systems
(backfit), and 2 buried minehunting modules, including support
equipment.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $129.8
million in line number 30 of OPN.

Knifefish

The budget request included $40.5 million in line number 34
of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of small
and medium unmanned underwater vehicles.
The committee notes that the two Knifefish systems which
are to be procured with this funding require further testing,
including the initial operational test and evaluation period
that is currently scheduled for fiscal year 2021.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.9
million in line number 34 of OPN.

Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program

The budget request included $420.2 million in line number
44 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of
electronic warfare equipment.
The committee notes that procurement of at least two of the
three Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program Block 3
units is early-to-need based on the Navy's installation plan.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $62.0
million in line number 44 of OPN.

Ship's signal exploitation equipment expansion

The budget request included $194.8 million in line number
45 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for shipboard information
warfare exploitation.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations'
unfunded priority list states that additional funding could
provide for expansion of ship's signal exploitation space and
installation of ship's signal exploitation equipment
modifications on Flight I Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in line number 45 of OPN.

Next Generation Surface Search Radar

The budget request included $168.4 million in line number
70 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of
items less than $5 million.
The committee notes that procurement of 28 Next Generation
Surface Search Radars is early-to-need based on the Navy's
installation plan.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.8
million in line number 70 of OPN.

Sonobuoys

The budget request included $260.6 million in line number
85 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for the procurement of
sonobuoys.
The committee notes that greater-than-expected sonobuoy
expenditures in fiscal year 2019 resulted in the Chief of Naval
Operations' requesting procurement of additional sonobuoys as a
fiscal year 2020 unfunded priority.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million in line number 85 of OPN.

Electronic Procurement System

The budget request included $66.1 million in line number
122 of Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Command Support
Equipment, including $6.3 million for Electronic Procurement
System.
The committee remains concerned about unnecessarily bespoke
contract writing systems and processes.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.3
million in line number 122 of OPN.

Air Force

F-35A

The budget request included $4.3 billion in line number 1
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 48 F-35
aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced
and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft
and understands that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has
placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.1
billion in line number 1 of APA for the procurement of 12
additional F-35 aircraft.

F-35 advanced procurement

The budget request included $655.5 million in line number 2
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for advanced
procurement of F-35 aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced
and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft
and understands that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has
placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $156.0
million in line number 2 of APAF for advanced procurement to
support 12 additional F-35A aircraft.

F-15X

The budget request included $1.1 billion in line number 3
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 8 F-15X
aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize its aging air superiority fighters. The
committee also understands that the use of existing non-
developmental aircraft already in inventory allows for the
continued readiness of current F-15 squadrons. However, the
committee is concerned that the associated non-recurring
engineering costs, as programmed, are above what should be for
a non-developmental aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $162.0
million in line number 3 of APAF.

KC-46

The budget request included $2.2 billion in line number 5
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 12 KC-46
aircraft.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced
and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of tanker aircraft and
understands that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has placed
additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $471.0
million in line 5 of APAF for the procurement of 3 additional
KC-46 aircraft.

F-15 ADCP

The budget request included $481.1 million in line number
25 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the
procurement of new avionics radars.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force
efforts to modernize the legacy 4th generation fleet in support
of the National Defense Strategy. The committee also
understands the Air Force's intention to recapitalize the F-15
fleet with new F-15X aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $75.1
million in line 25 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of
F-15 avionics.

F-15 IFF modernization

The budget request included $481.1 million in line number
25 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement
of new IFF.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force
efforts to modernize the legacy fourth generation fleet in
support of the National Defense Strategy. The committee also
understands the Air Force's intention to recapitalize the F-15
fleet with new F-15X aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.6
million in line 25 of APAF as a reduction of the procurement of
F-15 IFF.

F-15 Longerons

The budget request included $481.1 million in line number
25 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the
procurement of 64 F-15 Longerons.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force
efforts to modernize the legacy fourth generation fleet in
support of the National Defense Strategy. The committee also
understands the Air Force's intention to recapitalize the F-15
fleet with new F-15X aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $24.6
million in line number 25 of APAF as a reduction of the
procurement of F-15 Longerons.

F-15 Radar

The budget request included $481.1 million in line 25 of
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for procurement of new
radars.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force
efforts to modernize the legacy 4th generation fleet in support
of the National Defense Strategy. The committee also
understands the Air Force's intention to recapitalize the F-15
fleet with new F-15X aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.7
million in line number 25 of APAF as a reduction of the
procurement of F-15 radars.

F-16 modernization

The budget request included $234.8 million in line number
26 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF).
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize its fourth generation fighter fleet and
equip itself with the most advanced and capable radars in
support of the National Defense Strategy. However, the
committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of
procurement of advanced radars for the entire F-16 fleet.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0
million in line number 26 of APA for the procurement of 30
additional radars.

F-15C EPAWSS

The budget request included $149.0 million in line number
31 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for F-15 Eagle
Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS).
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced
electronic warfare capability available in support of the
National Defense Strategy. However, the committee also
understands the Air Force's intention to recapitalize the F-15
fleet with new F-15X aircraft already equipped with the EPAWSS.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $67.2
million in line number 31 of APAF as a reduction of the
procurement of additional F-15 EPAWSS kits.

Command and control sustainability

The budget request included $28.8 million in line number 58
of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for E-8.
The committee notes that command and control nodes are at a
significant disadvantage due to aging communications.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0
million in line 58 of APAF for next-generation satellite
communication radios that are both SATURN and Mobile User
Objective System capable as well as Multifunctional Information
Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System terminals.

F-35A Spares

The budget request included $708.0 million in line number
69 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for spares and
repair parts.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced
and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of fifth generation aircraft
and understands that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has
placed additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $96.0
million in line number 69.

KC-46 Spares

The budget request included $708.0 million in line number
69 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for spares and
repair parts.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Air Force's
efforts to modernize and equip itself with the most advanced
and capable aircraft in support of the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned about the
quantity and timing of procurement of tanker aircraft and
understands that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has placed
additional aircraft on his unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $141.0
million in line number 69 of APAF for spares.

RQ-4 spare parts

The budget request included $708.0 million in line number
69 of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for spares and
repair parts.
The committee is concerned about the quantity and timing of
spare parts for the RQ-4.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in line number 69 of APAF.

Minuteman III Modifications

The budget request included $50.8 million in line number 14
of Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for Minuteman III
modifications.
The committee supports the request of the Air Force to re-
align certain funds from other projects to support
implementation of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Crypto
Upgrade II program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.9
million in line number 14 of MPAF for Minuteman III
Modifications.

Air-Launched Cruise Missile

The budget request included $77.4 million in line number 17
in Missile Procurement, Air Force (MPAF), for the Air-Launched
Cruise Missile.
The committee supports the request of the Air Force to re-
align certain funds from the Support Equipment sub-project to
support other Air Force nuclear priorities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.9
million in line number 17 of MPAF for the Air-Launched Cruise
Missile.

F-35 training and range modernization

The budget request included $234.0 million in line number
32 of Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for Combat Training
Ranges.
The committee recognizes the importance of modernizing USAF
training ranges for 5th generation aircraft. The committee
notes that 35 percent of the current F-35A training curriculum
requires pilot training scenarios involving use of joint threat
emitters (JTEs) in order to simulate combat-like training
conditions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $28.0
million in Other Procurement, Air Force, for line number 32 to
install four JTEs for F-35A training.

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System

The budget request included $20.9 million in line number 36
of Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for Integrated
Personnel and Pay System.
The committee is concerned about poor agile implementation
and infrequent capability delivery.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.9
million in line number 36 of OPAF.

Defense Wide

Sharkseer transfer

The budget request included $3.3 million in line number 8
of Procurement, Defense-wide, Information Systems Security.
The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency to the Defense
Information Systems Agency.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.4
million in line number 8 for Procurement, Defense-wide, for the
Sharkseer program.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency procurement

The budget request included $425.9 million in line number
28 of Procurement, Defense-wide, for Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) procurement by the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA).
Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its
views regarding the transition of the THAAD program from the
MDA to the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $425.9
million in line number 28 of Procurement, Defense-wide.

Sharkseer transfer

The budget request included $1.5 million in line number 44
of Procurement, Defense-wide, Information Systems Security
Program (ISSP).
The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency to the Defense
Information Systems Agency.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.4
million in line number 44 of Procurement, Defense-wide, for the
Sharkseer program.

Radio Frequency Countermeasure System

The budget request included $173.4 million in line number
61 of Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), AC/MC-130J, of which
$41.6 million is for the AC/MC-130J Radio Frequency
Countermeasure System (RFCM).
The committee understands that the RFCM program is
experiencing schedule delays due to integration and
compatibility issues with the technology.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.8
million to line number 61 of PDW, AC/MC-130J, for a total of
$32.8 million for RFCM. The committee notes that, elsewhere in
the Act, there is a symmetric increase to U.S. Special
Operations Command's future vertical lift research and
development efforts, a high priority unfunded requirement
identified by the command.

Transfer OCO to Base

The budget request included $118.9 billion for Procurement
in base funding. The committee notes that the President's
budget request included $97.9 billion in the Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities that are
traditionally funded out of base accounts. The committee
believes that OCO for Base funding should be transferred into
the base accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $13.5
billion to Procurement.

Items of Special Interest

A-10 modernization

The committee is encouraged that the Air Force is executing
a modernization strategy to provide unmatched air power and
believes that modernizing the A-10 fleet is integral to this
strategy. The committee also believes that upgrades to weapons
delivery, management systems, and the electronic warfare and
communications suite that keep pace with threat advancements
and proliferation are critical to the continued success of the
weapons system. The committee notes that these enhancements and
the aircraft wing replacements will maintain the effectiveness
of the A-10C through the 2030s.
Therefore, the committee recommends that continuous funding
for the modernization of the A-10C be provided from fiscal year
2020 through fiscal year 2030 in order to achieve upgrades that
are long overdue.

Acquisition strategy for LHA-9 and LHA-10

The committee notes that the Navy estimates that $4.0
billion will be saved using a block buy acquisition strategy
for the procurement of CVN-80 and CVN-81.
The committee believes that such an approach for LHA-9 and
LHA-10 could provide substantial cost savings as well as needed
stability and predictability for the shipbuilder and its vendor
base.
Accordingly, not later than October 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the merits of pursuing a
block buy acquisition strategy for LHA-9 and LHA-10.
This report shall include a business case analysis
comparing the cost and schedule of single ship contracts for
LHA-9 and LHA-10 with a block buy contract for such ships as
well as a description of other key considerations that the
Secretary deems appropriate.
If the business case analysis shows that pursuing a block
buy strategy for LHA-9 and LHA-10 has merit, the committee
strongly encourages the Secretary to consider inclusion of such
a proposal in the Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2021.

Acquisition strategy for LPD Flight II-class ships

The committee notes that the Navy estimates that $4.0
billion will be saved using a block buy acquisition strategy
for the procurement of CVN-80 and CVN-81.
The committee believes that a block buy or multiyear
procurement approach for LPD Flight II-class amphibious
transport ships could provide substantial cost savings as well
as needed stability and predictability for the shipbuilder and
its vendor base.
Accordingly, not later than October 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the merits of pursuing a
block buy or multiyear procurement acquisition strategy for LPD
Flight II-class ships.
This report shall include a business case analysis
comparing the cost and schedule of single ship contracts with a
block buy or multiyear contract for such ships as well as a
description of other key considerations that the Secretary
deems appropriate.
If the business case analysis shows that pursuing a block
buy or multiyear procurement strategy for LPD Flight II-class
ships has merit, the committee strongly encourages the
Secretary to consider inclusion of such a proposal in the
Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2021.

Active Protection System for Stryker

Active Protection Systems (APS) can be a critical
capability to protect our warfighters on the battlefield. The
committee notes that the Army is currently procuring four
brigade sets of Trophy for the M1 Abrams tank and that a
decision was recently made to procure a brigade set of the Iron
Fist system for the M2 Bradley.
The Army has evaluated various systems for integration on
to Stryker vehicles but has not made a final decision on what
system is most effective and suitable for the platform.
According to a congressionally directed report that was
submitted in October 2018, the Army had anticipated making a
vendor selection during the second quarter of fiscal year 2019.
However in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee on Airland in April 2019, senior Army leadership
testified that it may take significantly more time for the Army
to make a determination on whether to proceed with either of
the systems being evaluated.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the committee by October 1, 2019, that
provides an update on the Army's efforts to assess APS vendors
for integration onto the Stryker platform, including the
effectiveness of systems tested, plans for future testing,
proposals for future development, and a timeline for fielding.

Adaptive Threat Force

The committee notes that the Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory's Adaptive Threat Force efforts in concept-based
experimentation seek to replicate future operating environments
and future adversaries. The committee believes that predictive
understanding of potential asymmetric advantages of adversaries
can be identified during experimentation through the use of red
teams and live adversary forces. Further, the committee notes
that these efforts can also lead to improved training of
warfighters.

Advanced Helicopter Training System

The committee believes that the Department of the Navy must
rapidly develop realistic rotary training platforms to help
ensure that the next generation of naval aviators remains
proficient in conducting sustained air operations at sea. The
Advanced Helicopter Training System (AHTS) addresses the
capacity and capability gaps for the Chief of Naval Air
Training rotary wing training pipeline. Through the AHTS
program, the Navy will revamp its training syllabus by
acquiring 130 helicopters and advanced simulators to produce
more than 600 student naval aviators and execute 90,000 flight
hours annually. The committee concurs with the Navy's
insistence that the TH-XX be Federal Aviation Administration-
Instrument Flight Rules (FAA-IFR) certified prior to awarding a
contract, thereby assuring that the Navy student pilot training
benefits from safety features and standards inherent in a fully
developed and FAA-IFR certified aircraft.

Advanced survivability modeling capability for air-launched weapons

The emergence of great power competition is the central
long-term planning challenge for the Department of Defense
(DOD). More capable adversaries employing highly advanced
integrated air defense systems can create heavily contested
environments that deny U.S. forces the freedom to operate. Such
integrated air defense systems present a threat not only to
launch systems but also to their air-launched conventional
weapons. Launch platforms and their suite of strike weapons
must possess sufficient range, autonomy, survivability, and
lethality for mission effectiveness in order to remain relevant
in future scenarios.
The committee is concerned that current air-launched
conventional weapons do not adequately account for advanced
terminal defense systems that often protect high-value mobile
targets both on land and at sea. Advanced integrated air
defenses are expected to be effective against weapons that were
designed to be survivable by virtue of a single attribute
(e.g., speed) rather than a combination of attributes that
enable successful engagement of high-value targets with state-
of-the-art, close-in weapon systems.
In addition, the committee is concerned about the fidelity
of DOD models that simulate the effectiveness of adversary
close-in defensive systems on conventional strike weapons. The
committee strongly encourages the Departments of the Navy and
Air Force to emphasize munitions survivability attributes that
together improve probability of mission success.
Therefore, the committee directs both the Secretary of the
Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing,
not later than March 1, 2020, that outlines the mission
effectiveness of current and planned air-launched conventional
weapons for use against high-value mobile targets protected by
advanced integrated air defense systems. The briefing must
address the following:
(1) Stand-off requirements;
(2) Survivability characteristics;
(3) Weapon lethality;
(4) A cost-per-kill assessment to evaluate mission
effectiveness; and
(5) A comparison of existing autonomous capability.

Aerospace ground equipment for B-52 Stratofortress

The committee understands that the Air Force bomber vector
plans to keep the B-52 weapon system available for conventional
and nuclear missions well into the 2040s. Efforts are now
underway to update the plane's radars, engines, communications,
and navigation equipment. Relatively little effort has been
given to the aerospace ground equipment that provide power,
inert gas, munitions loading, and other support functions in
preparation for a mission, yet this ground support equipment is
just as important to mission success as components on the B-52.
The committee is concerned that the failure of ground
electrical carts can cause a delay of several hours to a bomber
mission.
Therefore, the committee directs the Air Force to brief the
congressional defense committees, no later than April 30, 2020,
on the age of the aerospace ground support equipment currently
supporting the B-52 weapon system, their average reliability,
and plans to replace or update this equipment in line with
keeping the B-52 weapon system operational through 2040.

Air Force Active Association

The committee supports the Air Force's Total Force
Integration (TFI) concept to leverage the capabilities of both
the Air Force Active Duty and its reserve components. The
committee believes that Active Associations are an important
component of TFI, providing the opportunity for Active-Duty
pilots and personnel to access reserve component aircraft and
train with reserve component pilots and maintenance personnel.
The committee remains concerned about the delayed
deliveries of the KC-46A aerial refueling tanker and the impact
it will have on the existing tanker fleet, most notably
extending the service of KC-135 tankers. The committee is
further concerned about the continued operation of legacy air
refueling platforms and the impact on the Air Force's Active
Associations. Therefore, the committee directs the Air Force
and Air Mobility Command to notify the congressional defense
committees regarding any plans to draw down Active Associations
because KC-46A deliveries have been later than planned and, if
there are such reductions, to provide a report on plans to
restore these existing Active Associations to full strength.

Air Force Future ISR Integration Strategy

The committee is aware of the recent publication of the
United States Air Force Next Generation Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Dominance Flight Plan
and the Air Force's desire to modernize its ISR enterprise. The
committee is encouraged by the Air Force's intent to field a
resilient, integrated ISR network of manned and unmanned
systems to prevail in contested environments, and it believes
that this goal aligns with the National Defense Strategy.
The committee notes that the Air Force's future ISR
enterprise will comprise both manned and unmanned systems that
are integrated with space and cyber assets. While the fielding
of advanced autonomous systems and ISR networks will allow for
added resiliency, large manned platforms such as the RC-135 are
forecasted to remain an integral part of the Air Force ISR
system for decades to come, and they offer a unique set of
capabilities that are central to meeting the needs of combatant
commanders. The committee believes that the Air Force must have
the capability to integrate information from both manned and
unmanned assets in its future ISR enterprise in order to
capitalize on the strengths offered by both platforms. In its
effort to realize the goals of its Next Generation ISR
Dominance Flight Plan, the Air Force must ensure that all
assets and platforms are integrated into a unified concept of
operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees, no later than March 1, 2020, detailing the Air
Force's plan for integrating both manned and unmanned systems
into its future force mix and ISR enterprise. The report shall
detail how the Air Force plans to use manned ISR assets
alongside unmanned platforms as well as space-based ISR
platforms and a networked sensor architecture in support of the
warfighter. The report shall also detail planned modernization
and survivability upgrades to the manned assets and networks.
The report shall:
(1) Detail the strengths and vulnerabilities in both
manned and unmanned ISR elements;
(2) Provide a detailed description of the data links
for both control and data processing;
(3) Describe the next generation of data link to
succeed Link 16 capability; and
(4) Provide funding data to support this concept
across the future years defense program.

Air Force ISR SIGINT data integration

The committee notes the efforts of the Air Force to develop
an integrated, capability-focused SIGINT architecture and
investment strategy. The committee observes that the investment
has already produced significant advances in Air Force SIGINT
capability, particularly within the medium-altitude RC-135
Rivet Joint program. The committee is also aware that some
significant capability gaps exist against current threats and
that the Air Force has not yet addressed diminishing industrial
base issues with the high-altitude Airborne Signals
Intelligence Payload program. Additionally, the Air Force has
not yet achieved a unified enterprise for SIGINT processing,
exploitation, and dissemination, despite having a distributed
technical architecture within both the RC-135 Rivet Joint and
Air Force distributed common ground system programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees, no later than March 1, 2020, on how the Air Force
is implementing its Next Generation Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance Dominance Flight Plan in order to make Air
Force airborne SIGINT data from the RC-I35, U-2, RQ-4, MQ-9,
and future SIGINT capabilities discoverable and available to
the joint warfighter. The briefing shall address, among other
things, cloud-based technologies and distributed crew concepts.

Army rotary wing munitions capabilities, capability gaps, and solutions

The committee is concerned that the standoff range
advantages of U.S. rotary wing aircraft munitions have eroded
when compared to near peer and regional adversaries like
Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Munitions with greater
standoff range and the ability to operate in a GPS-denied or -
degraded environment are critical to restoring the Army's
dominance in air-to-surface fires.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing by October 1, 2019, on Army rotary wing
munitions capabilities, capability gaps, and potential off-the-
shelf solutions. The briefing should include:
(1) Current U.S. rotary wing munitions capabilities
and capability gaps against munitions fielded by
Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea;
(2) Potential off-the-shelf solutions that would
bridge these capability gaps, including any munitions
that the U.S. tests in calendar year 2019; and
(3) Detailed information on any testing of non-
program of record munitions by the U.S. Army in
calendar year 2019, including:
(a) An assessment of the effectiveness of the
tested munitions to meet threats from near peer
adversaries and any operational needs
statements from combat aviation brigades for
Europe and the Indo-Pacific;
(b) An assessment of whether the tested
munitions would complement capabilities for
current programs of record;
(c) A comparison of the tested systems'
capabilities against current munitions; and
(4) The cost and timeline for the Army to field the
necessary capability to close this gap, including:
(a) Interim fielding to meet current
requirements; and
(b) Potential enduring solutions.

ATACMS Requirement

The committee is concerned that the current Army Tactical
Missile System (ATACMS) inventory is insufficient to meet
requirements, especially in light of the National Defense
Strategy. The Army total munition requirement for ATACMSs is
4,417 missiles but the current quantity is 1,725 missiles.
Despite the shortfall, the Army's plan is to extend the life of
existing ATACMSs rather than growing additional capacity.
However, the Army has had a difficult time retrieving existing
ATACMSs to put them into the shelf-life extension program and
thus has relied on new missile production to replace existing
inventory. The committee notes that, in the budget request for
fiscal year 2020, $340.6 million of the $425.9 million for the
ATACMS program is for new missile procurement.
The committee also notes that the Army's unfunded
priorities list requested funding for Cross-Domain ATACMSs to
support a United States Indo-Pacific Combatant Command
requirement. Further, the committee notes that the Precision
Strike Missile, which would replace ATACMS, will not include
cross-domain capabilities until fiscal year 2024 at the
earliest. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Army
reevaluate decisions to not grow the ATACMS inventory given:
(1) The substantial shortfall in inventory as compared to the
actual requirement; (2) That the Army is already procuring new
all-up rounds; and (3) The new capabilities that the Cross-
Domain ATACMS now adds to the program.

Bomber roadmap

The committee is concerned with the timing of multiple
programs involving the Air Force bomber force. The committee
notes that the strategic threat from peer competitors like
China and Russia will only continue to increase, as highlighted
in the National Defense Strategy, which will increase demand on
the critical bomber force.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing, no later than February 1, 2020, to
the congressional defense committees that delineates the
strategy and the pathway for legacy bombers as well as the
acquisition of the B-21 and its integration in the bomber
force. The briefing shall include an updated Air Force bomber
roadmap and the Air Force's plans for timing and
synchronization of:
(1) B-52 re-engining and modernization;
(2) Construction of weapons generation facilities;
(3) Basing of B-21 conventional and nuclear aircraft;
and
(4) Life cycle sustainment of B-1, B-2, and B-52
aircraft.

Bradley program

The budget request included $638.8 million in line 5 of
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV), for the procurement
of upgrades to the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. As an
integral part of the Army's Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT),
the Bradley is being modernized in a program approved by the
Army Acquisition Executive in July 2011 to enhance
survivability, mobility, and lethality by procurement of
hardware for modifications. These modifications include two
Engineering Change Proposals in this plan, with the Bradley A4
upgrade being the most significant.
As the Army works to align itself with the National Defense
Strategy and its focus on near-peer competition, the committee
understands that the Army plans to gradually phase out the
Bradley and replace it with a new Optionally Manned Fighting
Vehicle (OMFV). To achieve this strategy, the Army has
formulated a plan to end M2A4 production in fiscal year 2022,
following the procurement of 859 vehicles (fielding 5 ABCTs
plus 1 prepositioned set), which will enable sufficient funding
for the procurement of the OMFV.
The committee supports the Army's planning and budgeting to
achieve force modernization with the OMFV and understands that
it will take at least 6 years to develop and begin fielding the
OMFV. The committee also notes that the Bradley A4 upgrade
program is essential to ensuring that the ABCT remains relevant
for the next 3 decades. Nonetheless, the committee encourages
the Army to ensure that the Bradley industrial base is properly
maintained until the Army has a high level of confidence that
the OMFV program will not be delayed.
Therefore, the committee supports the procurement of
upgrades for the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicle
modernization across five ABCTs, efforts to sustain the entire
fleet, and the incorporation of an Active Protection System
into the fleet.

Building Partner Combat Air Capacity

The committee understands the importance of building
partner capacity as part of the U.S. National Security
Strategy. The committee supports ongoing Department of Defense
(DOD) efforts to increase the combat air capability and
interoperability of U.S. coalition partners. Proficiency in air
combat requires training in a realistic air-combat environment
with the ability to provide post-mission reconstruction of
maneuvers and tactics, participant pairings, and integration of
range targets and simulated threats. That is achieved today
around the world using air combat maneuvering instrumentation
(AGMI) systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the congressional defense committees, no later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on DOD's
ability to increase the utilization of U.S. approved and
interoperable AGMI systems worldwide. The briefing shall, at a
minimum, identify current approved world-wide AGMI locations
and identify and prioritize locations where new AGMI systems
could increase combat air capability of U.S. and partner
forces.

Capability to counter supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles

The committee believes that the Department of Defense is
late-to-need on dealing with the current threat of fielded or
soon-to-be-fielded supersonic and hypersonic missiles in both
the Indo-Pacific and European areas of responsibility.
In addition, the committee believes there is a disconnect
between Joint Force doctrine, the responsibility of the area
air defense commander, which is normally the Air Component
Commander, and the responsibility for air and missile defense,
which resides with the U.S. Army, as established in law. This
issue is most pronounced with theater air and missile defense,
and it has the potential to yield a gap between joint force
requirements and available capabilities that will only be
increased with constrained spending.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Joint Force Air Component Commanders
for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and U.S. European Command, to
provide a briefing, not later than January 1, 2020, to the
congressional defense committees, on countering supersonic
cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. The briefing must
include:
(1) Currently fielded or soon-to-be fielded adversary
supersonic or hypersonic missiles;
(2) An evaluation of the ability to counter
supersonic threats against airfields and Army
preposition sites by 2023, based on available forces or
potential programs available to be fielded in that
timeframe;
(3) An evaluation of the ability to counter
hypersonic threats against airfields and Army
preposition sites by 2023, based on available forces or
potential programs available to be fielded in that
timeframe;
(4) Any other subjects or recommendations that the
Secretary or Component Commanders wish to include.

Carbon fiber wheels and graphitic foam for Next Generation Combat
Vehicle

The committee recognizes the recent effort related to Metal
Matrix Composite (MMC) technologies and is encouraged by the
U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center's (GVSC) decision to
transition into lower-cost, wider application carbon fiber
composite wheels and graphitic carbon foam research to support
the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). Carbon fiber wheels
may reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase
payload capacity, and extend service life for the NGCV.
Graphitic Carbon Foam may also reduce vehicle heat signatures
and improve heat dissipation from engine and electronics
compartments and protect against blast energy, directed energy
weapons, and electromagnetic pulse threats. Finally, these
products lend themselves to be produced at remote locations
with additive manufacturing processes in support of NGCV
operation and maintenance.
The Defense Logistics Agency has designated both graphite
and carbon fiber as strategic materials. The committee notes
that the GVSC has identified low-cost mesophase pitch as a
United States-based source of graphite that can be used to
produce carbon fiber, graphitic carbon foam, and battery
technologies for the NGCV. The committee acknowledges the
versatility and broad application that carbon fiber technology
provides for the armed services by reducing the weight of parts
by over 50% as compared to traditional steel components.
The committee recommends that the GVSC continue to develop,
test, and field low-cost mesophase pitch carbon fiber and
graphitic carbon foam components that can reduce vehicle
weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity,
extend service life, improve survivability, and utilize
additive manufacturing technology for the NGCV program.

CH-47F Block II Program

The budget request contained $174.4 million in PE 67137A
within Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E),
Army for the CH-47 Block II program. The CH-47F Block II
program is designed to upgrade the current CH-47F Block I
heavy-lift rotorcraft in order to improve readiness and
commonality, extend the useful life of the Block I helicopter,
and restore additional payload capacity for the airframe. The
committee understands that the budget request fully funds the
completion of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(EMD) phase of the Block II program. The committee also
understands that, subject to successful completion of the EMD
phase, the Army plans to conduct a Milestone C low-rate
production decision beginning in fiscal year 2021. However, the
committee notes that the current Future Years Defense Program
(FYDP) provides no additional procurement funding for the CH-47
Block II program.
Further, the committee notes that the formal Analysis of
Alternatives for the CH-47 Block II indicated that, in order to
maintain fleet readiness, the Army must begin to remanufacture
CH-47 Block I rotorcraft between fiscal years 2024 and 2028 and
sustain full-rate production of 12 aircraft per year by fiscal
year 2030. The committee is concerned about the impact from the
lack of programmed funding in the FYDP for CH-47 Block II
production on the heavy-lift rotorcraft industrial base and the
Army's long-term plans to maintain fleet readiness post-FYDP.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing by October 1, 2019, on the following
topics: potential readiness impacts to the current CH-47F fleet
should Block II production be delayed post-FYDP; a cost-benefit
analysis comparing the CH-47 Block II upgrade program to CH-47F
remanufacture efforts; the impacts to current MH-47G aircraft
production given the delay of Block II production; the analysis
the Army used to assess the strategic risk to the industrial
base, including the supplier base; and the Army's current
strategy for modernizing the heavy-lift rotorcraft fleet.

CH-53K King Stallion program

The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps validated a
requirement for heavy-lift expeditionary rotary wing aviation
to support ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore, and shore-to-ship
movement of personnel and equipment. With the existing heavy
lift platform, the CH-53E, nearing the end of its service life,
the Marine Corps has embarked on a procurement effort for the
CH-53K King Stallion to maintain or improve the current
capability. The committee notes, however, that this program is
at least 19 months behind schedule and has experienced cost
growth of over 20 percent above the 2005 baseline. At a cost
now estimated to exceed $85 million per aircraft, the committee
is concerned that the cost of this program is pulling resources
away from other urgently needed modernization efforts.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department of the Navy
and the U.S. Marine Corps to ensure that this program receives
sufficient acquisition oversight to eliminate further cost
growth and schedule delays.

Close combat lethality task force

In February 2018, the Secretary of Defense established the
Close Combat Lethality Task Force (CCLTF), a cross-functional
task force charged with improving combat capabilities of
infantry formations to increase lethality, survivability, and
resiliency on the battlefield. The CCLTF has focused its
efforts on reforming manpower policy, improving training, and
fielding cutting-edge equipment and weapons systems for these
formations. These efforts are particularly noteworthy as
technology proliferation has eroded the comparative advantage
of these forces, and, with renewed great power competition, it
is imperative that the Department of Defense focus on
investments that support close combat formations that
historically account for the majority of U.S. casualties.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department to continue
its support of the CCLTF, including through sufficient
resourcing of the task force and by maintaining the exceptional
quality of its leadership as well as the direct reporting
relationship to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy
Secretary of Defense.

Columbia-class schedule

The committee continues to have great interest in actions
taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop, build, and
deploy Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines.
The committee notes that a Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report, published on April 8, 2019, titled ``Columbia
Class Submarine: Overly Optimistic Cost Estimate Will Likely
Lead To Budget Increases'' (GAO-19-947), found that challenges
with critical new systems, including the integrated power
system and common missile compartment, have eroded available
lead ship schedule margin such that there is less time
available to address issues without resulting in overall lead
ship schedule delays.
The committee is concerned by these challenges, as well as
several other findings in this report, and the associated
potential for delays in delivering the lead ship of the
Columbia-class in fiscal year 2028 and deploying the lead ship
in fiscal year 2031.
The committee also notes that the GAO published a report on
June 6, 2018, titled ``Navy Shipbuilding: Past Performance
Provides Valuable Lessons for Future Investments'' (GAO-18-
238SP), which assessed Navy shipbuilding performance over the
past 10 years and found that each of the 8 most recently
delivered lead combatant ships (CVN-78, DDG-1000, LCS-1, LCS-2,
LHA-6, LPD-17, SSN-774, and SSN-775) was delivered to the fleet
at least 6 months late and 5 of these 8 lead ships were delayed
by more than 2 years.
Therefore, not later than December 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the Columbia-class schedule
and impact of potential lead ship delays. The report shall
include a description of the: (1) Current schedule margin and
critical path(s) for the lead ship in order to meet planned
delivery and deployment dates; (2) Potential risks to the lead
ship schedule, including the associated potential schedule
impact for each such risk; (3) Potential operational impacts,
shipbuilding impacts, and mitigation options if the lead ship
delivery date is delayed by 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, or 3
years; and (4) Recommendations for congressional or DOD action
to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the impact of potential
lead ship schedule delays.

DOD efforts to improve friendly force identification

The committee acknowledges that the inadvertent loss of
U.S. military personnel to friendly fire is a long-standing and
tragic reality of military operations, including ongoing
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the Department of
Defense (DOD) has made strides in processes and technologies to
help distinguish between friendly and enemy forces, incidents
of friendly fire continue to exist. The committee is aware that
joint terminal air controllers use a variety of friendly force
identification systems in close air support operations and that
the DOD continues to seek improvements in its ability to
identify friendly forces. The committee is also concerned that
ongoing efforts by the DOD to upgrade these capabilities are
not being adequately coordinated or synchronized to ensure the
expeditious integration of new technologies and the
interoperability of these systems as they are fielded.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to evaluate the following issues:
(1) What actions has the DOD taken to ensure a common
understanding of requirements and challenges related to
friendly force identification by close air support
aircraft, including visibility over ongoing efforts to
meet those requirements;
(2) What efforts does the DOD have underway to
enhance its friendly force identification capabilities,
to include efforts to identify, evaluate, and
incorporate new technologies in an expeditious and
cost-effective manner;
(3) To what extent does the DOD coordinate and
communicate friendly force identification requirements
and evaluations to ensure that the programs it is
developing are complementary and interoperable; and
(4) Any other issues that the Comptroller General
determines appropriate with respect to efforts to
improve DOD's ability to identify friendly forces and
minimize friendly fire incidents.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

Future Vertical Lift Capability Set 3 potential acceleration

The budget request included $31.9 million in PE 63801A
within Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E),
Army for the continued development of the Future Long Range
Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) as part of the Army's Future Vertical
Lift (FVL) family of systems. The FVL family of systems
consists of aircraft across five capability sets based on size,
and the FLRAA effort is capability set three.
The committee understands that the FLRAA platform will
replace a portion of the Army's utility helicopter fleet to
provide considerable capability improvements in speed, range,
agility, endurance, and sustainability as compared to current
legacy utility helicopters. The committee notes that the
current acquisition strategy for the FLRAA represents a
traditional approach. However, the committee understands that
the Army is considering multiple courses of action to
accelerate this program through the use of acquisition reform
authorities. Further, the committee understands that the Army
is nearing completion of the Joint Multi-Role Technology
Demonstration (JMR-TD) effort that successfully demonstrated
several transformational vertical lift capabilities and
technologies.
Given the substantial investment and knowledge gained by
the successful JMR-TD, the committee expects the Army to
possess a much better understanding of the technology readiness
levels required for the FLRAA development program. As such, the
committee believes that the Army should be in a position to
reasonably accelerate the FLRAA schedule and acquisition
strategy. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to
consider using a more tailored acquisition approach for the
FLRAA program, to include developing prototypes to expedite the
procurement of critical technologies. The committee expects
that, following any such prototyping effort, the Army would
pursue a follow-on production contract using competitive
procedures.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives that details a course of action to accelerate
the FLRAA program, to include potential use of tailored
acquisition strategies, procedures, and authorities with
appropriate oversight, management, and technical rigor.

Global Broadcast System Technologies

The committee recognizes that new Global Broadcast System
(GBS) technologies and services may be able to augment
satellite communication (SATCOM) bandwidth for the warfighter
at both home-base and deployed locations where users continue
to struggle with congested networks. The GBS is a critical
element of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability and, though its
primary focus has been to transmit full motion video from
unmanned aircraft systems to tactically deployed forces, it
could have value for all types of data needed by the warfighter
in a deployed or garrison environment. Portable, rucksack GBS
systems could provide a cost-effective way of supporting those
goals as the DOD moves into a new era of hybrid SATCOM
networks, the innovative use of GBS should be considered as the
Department decides on how to provide a holistic solution.
The committee encourages the DOD to procure and rapidly
field commercially-available, secure Satellite Portable Receive
Suites and Rucksack Portable Receive Suites to test their
ability and contribute to meeting communications requirements
for deployed warfighter operations as well as base installation
operational training activities.

Guided missile frigate (FFG(X))

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

Improved Turbine Engine Program

The Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) is an
acquisition program to develop a more powerful engine that
would enhance performance at high altitudes and at elevated
temperatures while improving operational readiness of the
current UH-60 Blackhawk and AH-64 Apache helicopter fleets. The
ITEP also has a goal to improve fuel efficiency, which will
ease the mission of sustainment forces.
The committee notes that this program represents a cost-
effective approach to modernizing aviation assets. Therefore,
the committee encourages the Army to pursue opportunities to
accelerate the fielding of this capability.

Improving Air Force acquisition and sustainment processes

The committee notes that the Air Force has identified
acquisition reform as a key priority and has made progress in
taking advantage of authorities that the Congress has provided
in recent National Defense Authorization Acts to accelerate
prototyping and experimentation. The Air Force reports that it
has cut 93 years from previous program schedules, and it cites
this as a positive indicator of progress toward the goal of
reducing timelines and enabling more agile fielding of systems
and technology.
The committee supports the Air Force's effort to fully use
authorities provided by the Congress to improve its acquisition
processes while ensuring that proper internal and external
oversight over programs is maintained, deployed systems are
operationally effective and suitable, and systems are
developed, deployed, and sustained in the most cost-effective
and -efficient manner. The committee encourages the Air Force
to continue focusing on improvements in these areas while
leveraging proven methods to accelerate acquisition and
sustainment across the total enterprise.

Marine Corps nano vertical takeoff and landing unmanned aerial systems

The Marine Corps has indicated a need for Nano Vertical
Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Systems for the purpose of
providing individual squads with an airborne intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability with real
time video and imagery of the tactical environment. The Army is
pursuing a similar solution, the Soldier Borne Sensor program,
for its squads and small units. The committee encourages the
Marine Corps to review the Army's effort, which may help
facilitate development of an ISR capability that can increase
the lethality and survivability of Marine Corps squads.

Metrics for evaluating potential impacts to airspace

The committee is aware of ongoing discussions with
individual project developers, military installations, and the
Services regarding proposed energy projects and potential
conflicts with military airspace needs. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to also initiate non-project-specific
policy-level discussions with industry, affected military
installations, and military service leadership to develop
clearly defined, objective criteria, measures, and metrics that
provide guidance as to when potential impacts to airspace rise
to unacceptable levels. This will help installations assess
proposed projects and assist industry in avoiding areas of
concern.

Mobile aircrew restraint system

The committee noted in the the Senate report accompanying
S. 1519 (S. Rept. 115-125) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 that the use of the
Mobile Aircrew Restraint System (MARS) by the U.S. Air Force on
its fleet of HH-60 aircraft is to provide survivability
improvements over legacy restraint systems. The committee
encouraged the U.S. Army to utilize available testing and
approval data from the Air Force for incorporation into the UH-
60 aircraft fleet. However, there has been little progress on
the potential incorporation of the MARS on the Army's UH-60
fleet.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, on the
MARS, including: the status of the Army's Airworthiness Release
(AWR) on the use of MARS, potential costs to implement AWR
modifications, and the timeline to execute AWR implementation.

Modular rugged power devices

The committee notes that National Guard units are
frequently deployed to assist with emergency management
situations, including responding to natural disasters. Often in
these circumstances, the deployed servicemembers cannot depend
upon the established electrical grid for energy needs in
support of the mission, and mobile power generation is critical
to support their operations. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to consider
acquiring modular rugged power devices that are self-contained
and lightweight zero-emission power generation systems to meet
equipping and energy needs.

Mounted A-PNT solutions

Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (A-PNT)
solutions are critical to the warfighter due to the reliance of
military systems on the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the
ability of near-peer competitors to deny or disrupt access to
GPS. In order to address this challenge, the Army has
established a cross-functional team for A-PNT to ensure that
the Army's ground maneuver forces have access to trusted PNT
information even in a GPS-denied environment.
The committee understands that the Army has made progress
in the fielding of a Mounted A-PNT solution (MAPS) for Army
ground platforms and encourages the Army to field the most
capable solution as quickly as possible. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by October 1, 2019, on the
status of the Army's MAPS program to include fielding
timelines, system capabilities, and how the system will be
scalable and compatible with future upgrades.

MQ-1 Gray Eagle briefing

The committee notes the significant capability that the MQ-
1 Gray Eagle fleet of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) provides
to the Army. This capability is game-changing and reduces risk
for Army soldiers by providing extended surveillance coverage
and the ability to self-transit to distant locations by virtue
of its long endurance and ease of use, itself deriving from its
automatic takeoff and landing system, which the aircraft to be
launched and recovered with minimal operator interaction.
The current fleet consists of over 200 Gray Eagle aircraft,
half of which are the original configuration and the other half
are the Gray Eagle Extended Range (GE-ER) configuration. The
GE-ER is the next-generation advanced derivative, providing
longer-endurance UAS surveillance, communications relay, and
weapons delivery missions in support of maneuver.
However, the committee is concerned that a mixed fleet of
Gray Eagle aircraft may not be sufficient to meeting ever
increasing operational requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, to the
Senate Armed Services Committee on the capabilities and
capacity of the MQ-1 Gray Eagle fleet. The briefing shall
include:
(1) A fleet optimization plan to meet long-term
surveillance requirements in multi-domain operations in
support of the National Defense Strategy;
(2) Potential readiness impacts to the Army of
operating a mixed fleet of Gray Eagle aircraft; and
(3) Cost-benefit analysis comparing operations of the
current mixed fleet of aircraft to operations of a pure
GE-ER fleet.

Multiyear block buy for F-35

The committee notes that both the production and
sustainment costs for the F-35 program continue to decrease.
However, the committee believes that further savings may be
realized through multiyear block buy contracts.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, no later than February
1, 2020, to deliver a report to the congressional defense
committees that examines the business case for a combined
domestic and international 3-to-5 year multiyear contract for
procurement of the F-35A/B/C, beginning with Lot 15. The report
shall include: analysis of the appropriate government furnished
equipment, such as propulsion systems savings; an assessment of
the design stability and technical risk, given the Block 4
changes introduced to the baseline beginning in Lot 15; and an
evaluation of the potential to achieve significant net savings
for the Department of Defense and international partners
through economies of scale. Additionally, the report shall
articulate the optimal multiyear contract length for the F-35.

Operational energy of generator sets

Generator sets used by the Services supply critical power
that supports the Army's top modernization priorities to make
its soldiers and units more lethal. The committee is pleased
with Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to increase fuel
efficiency, improve combat capability, decrease tactical risk,
and reduce the cost of generators. Specifically, the committee
is encouraged by efforts to reduce fuel requirements by
eliminating the need to operate redundant generator sets.
The Army and Marine Corps are incorporating microgrid
control capability on all current 30kW to 60kW generator set
models, which automatically start and stop generator sets based
on load demand. This capability increases fuel savings for the
DOD and improves system-level reliability. The committee also
encourages the Services to incorporate an energy storage module
with generator sets to provide more energy-efficient power.
This ability will further increase system efficiency and
reliability, decrease maintenance frequency, enable silent
watch operations, and facilitate integration of renewable
energy sources.

Persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and
heavy payloads

The committee remains concerned that the combatant commands
are not being given sufficient airborne intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support assets to
adequately provide force protection, situational awareness,
maritime domain awareness (MDA), combat identification, high-
precision geolocation, and other necessary capabilities to
support deployed forces as they execute missions. In their
respective testimonies before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, the Combatant Commanders of U.S. Africa Command
(AFRICOM), U.S. European Command (EUCOM), U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command (INDO-PACOM), and U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) all
stated that they have significant gaps between ISR requirements
and ISR capacity.
Increased ISR could enhance AFRICOM's Counter-Violent
Extremist Organizations missions, EUCOM's European Deterrence
Initiative (EDI), INDO-PACOM's MDA, and SOUTHCOM's counter-
narcotics missions. The Commander of INDO-PACOM stated that
``ISR is a critical need in the region'' and that ``less than
half of my requirements are served by the ISR that's available
in the region.'' The Commander of SOUTHCOM testified that
SOUTHCOM is ``deficient in [its] ISR for the counter-narcotics
mission.'' He further stated that the Joint Interagency Task
Force-South (JIATFS) only interdicted about six percent of
known drug movements. The committee agrees with the testimony
of the Commander of EUCOM--that there is a global shortage of
high demand, low density assets and that there may be
commercial technologies that could help mitigate the capability
gaps.
The committee notes that there are commercial technologies
in development that could help address many of the combatant
commands' ISR gaps. Heavy payload, solar-powered unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV) are being developed that, because of
their unique power source and electric engines, may be able to
operate aloft and on station in an enduring, quiet, and
persistent manner. These systems present the possibility of
basing in friendly territory and deployment in advance of
planned missions to provide ISR pre-mission, during the
mission, and post-mission. Some solar-powered candidate systems
have modular designs and payload capacities of more than 300
pounds. These assets may be able to serve as a multi-
intelligence platform able to provide agile sensor suites in
response to mission requirements.
The technological challenge to realizing the potential of
such systems would be developing payloads that have overall
dependability and sufficient reliability to stay aloft and
continue performing missions for long periods of time. Such
reliability is not usually found in current airborne ISR
systems.
The committee supports additional resources for payload
improvements and to evaluate a persistent, quiet, heavy
payload, solar-powered, multi-intelligence ISR asset.

Personal recovery devices for servicemembers

As the Army pivots to great power competition and multi-
domain operations, Assured-Position, Navigation, and Timing (A-
PNT) technologies will be critical in enabling the U.S.
military to conduct operations in a Global Positioning System-
contested environment. Furthermore, the Personnel Recovery
Support System (PRSS), which includes the PRSS 1b Secure
Personal Locator Beacon, can leverage A-PNT technology to
assist in the location of missing and captured servicemembers
on the battlefield.
The committee supports the Army's initial procurement and
deployment of a personal recovery device that can operate in
GPS-denied or -degraded environments. In addition, the
committee notes the Army has stood up a cross-functional team
to rapidly assess material development solutions to address the
A-PNT mission area and potential capability gaps. Therefore,
the committee encourages the Army to continue investment and
deployment of proven A-PNT solutions and PRSSs.

Reliability growth of systems on Ford-class aircraft carriers

The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) published a report on June 6, 2018, titled ``Navy
Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for
Future Investments'' (GAO-18-238SP), which assessed Navy
shipbuilding performance over the past 10 years and concluded
that ``. . . the Navy's shipbuilding programs have had years of
construction delays and, even when the ships eventually reached
the fleet, they often fell short of quality and performance
expectations.''
The committee is concerned that Navy ships are being
delivered to the fleet with incomplete and underperforming
systems, which often leads to the reliability of key systems
falling short of Navy requirements.
The reliability of key systems on the lead ship in the
Ford-class of aircraft carriers, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78),
is particularly concerning. While the Navy accepted delivery of
CVN-78 from the shipbuilder in May 2017, 20 months later than
initially planned, reliability measured through September 30,
2018, of four key systems is either orders of magnitude below
the Navy's stated requirement or unknown.
As reported by the Department of Defense's Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in December 2018,
through the first 747 shipboard launches, the Electromagnetic
Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) suffered 10 critical failures,
well below the requirement of 4,166 mean cycles between
critical failures, where a cycle represents the launch of one
aircraft. Through the first 763 attempted shipboard landings,
the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) suffered 10 operational
mission failures, well below the re-baselined reliability
growth curve and well below the requirement of 16,500 mean
cycles between operational mission failures, where a cycle
represents the recovery of one aircraft. For the Dual Band
Radar (DBR) and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE), only
engineering reliability estimates, not actual data, have been
provided by the Navy to the DOT&E.
The committee is concerned that inadequate reliability of
key shipboard systems, such as those on CVN-78, will result in
degraded operational performance that will not meet combatant
commander needs.
Therefore, beginning on October 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit quarterly reports
to the congressional defense committees on the reliability of
the EMALS, AAG, DBR, and AWE until each system meets its full
reliability requirement. Each report shall utilize the DOT&E
measures and metrics to report measured reliability for each
system for the previous fiscal year quarter. Each report shall
also include projected reliability growth estimates, in
graphical and tabular form, to achieve the Navy's reliability
requirement for each system with the associated schedule. In
addition, the reports shall include descriptions of actions
being taken to improve the reliability of each system.

Report on future force design alternatives for Department of the Air
Force

While the committee acknowledges that the Air Force force
structure report as directed by section 1064 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-
91) recommended that the Air Force grow to 386 squadrons from
the current 312, it also observes that this recommendation
emerged from analysis using current operations plans and
concepts of operations. The committee believes that alternative
force designs could significantly change the inventory
requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than March 1, 2020, on future force
design alternatives for the Air Force. The Secretary shall
ensure that the report includes the following matters with an
accompanying unclassified summary:
(1) An assessment of the analysis used to conclude
that the Air Force requires growth to 386 operational
squadrons;
(2) An assessment of the anticipated global strategic
operating environment through 2040;
(3) Required capabilities and concepts that are
common to all future force design alternatives;
(4) Multi-domain command and control architectures
and associated communication capabilities required to
effectively implement the future force design;
(5) Prioritized technologies and prototyping required
for development and fielding to support the future
force design;
(6) Other capabilities and capacities required for
the Air Force to be an effective joint and coalition
warfighting partner; and
(7) Other matters that the Secretary considers
relevant for future force designs.

Report on impact to force structure of using aircraft for missile
defense

The committee notes that the 2019 Missile Defense Review
(MDR) tasked the Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency to deliver a report on how best to
integrate the F-35 into the missile defense system for both
regional and homeland defense. The committee is concerned that
the potential use of air assets to meet theater missile defense
requirements could put additional mission demand on an already
limited force structure and is not accounted for in the current
Air Force force structure planning.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to conduct a study on how this additional mission
requirement would change combatant commander requests for
forces, including impacts to basing and Time Phased Force
Development Data in current war plans. The Secretary shall
provide a report consisting of the findings of this study to
the congressional defense committees no later than January 1,
2020.

Robotics and autonomous systems

The committee recognizes the importance and growing role of
robotics and autonomous systems on the battlefield. For
example, the committee acknowledges that the Army's Robotic and
Autonomous Systems Strategy and the Functional Concept for
Movement and Maneuver identifies robotic systems as a critical
enabling technology. Further, the committee understands that
these capabilities at the Brigade Combat Team level may
facilitate the effective execution of missions in a contested
multi-domain environment.
With the establishment of cross functional teams and Army
Futures Command, the Army is bringing various Department of
Defense stakeholders together to explore concepts, ideas, and
develop potential solutions. The committee urges the Army to
continue creating opportunities to explore options in the
advancement of emerging robotic and autonomous technologies for
fielding at echelon across all of its warfighting functions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing, not later than October 1, 2019, on
robotics and autonomous systems to the Senate Armed Services
Committee. The briefing shall include:
(1) The feasibility, acceptability, and suitability
of establishing a Robotic Development Center nested
within the Army's Maneuver Center of Excellence; and
(2) The current and future plans to build
partnerships with institutions of higher education,
government laboratories, and industry in order to lead
the integrated development of prototypes.

Size, weight, power reductions of naval combat systems

The committee understands that the Navy and Marine Corps
are interested in options to reduce the size, weight, and power
(SWaP) of mission systems. By migrating applications from
multiple underutilized servers to fewer optimally-utilized
physical servers, the Navy may be able to significantly reduce
footprint, hardware costs, energy costs, and sustainment costs.
To fully understand the potential opportunity of SWaP
reductions in mission systems, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed
Services Committee, not later than October 1, 2019, on the
Department of the Navy's efforts to reduce the SWaP of such
systems. The briefing shall include, at a minimum: (1) A
description of ongoing SWaP reduction efforts for mission
systems; (2) An analysis by the Program Executive Office for
Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) of programs and projects
that could be virtualized on existing PEO IWS hardware
baselines; (3) An evaluation of the Navy's ability to
virtualize and consolidate existing warfare systems onto
virtual platforms; (4) An assessment of the Navy's ability to
migrate applications to platforms that utilize ``cloud''-type
technology; and (5) An estimation of savings that could be
achieved through SWaP reduction efforts.

Small-Unit Support Vehicle replacement

As the Department of Defense pivots to addressing the
demands of great-power competition, the committee understands
that the military must refocus on operating in a cold-weather
environment. The committee acknowledges that the Small-Unit
Support Vehicle (SUSV) is uniquely capable of supporting
maneuver forces in cold-weather and off-road operations. With
the capacity to transport 14 personnel and a footprint of just
1.8 pounds per square inch, the SUSV is extremely well-equipped
to traverse difficult terrain such as deep snow, tundra, mud,
swamps, and wetlands.
However, as the SUSV ages, the readiness and cost of
maintaining the fleet of 30-year-old vehicles may become
unsustainable. The committee notes the U.S. Army's recent
decision to approve the Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle as the
replacement for the SUSV. The committee encourages the Army to
procure its entire 163-vehicle Army Acquisition Objective and
consider further fielding to attain a fleet similar in size to
the SUSV's original fleet size. Finally, the committee
encourages other military services to consider joining the
Army's procurement in order to meet their cold-weather, all-
terrain vehicle transport needs.

Submarine industrial base and parts availability

The committee commends the Navy on its efforts to evaluate
and improve material demand visibility from submarine public
shipyards. The committee is aware that the lack of material
availability for Virginia-class submarine maintenance has
contributed to an increased reliance on cannibalization of
material from operational platforms, consequently decreasing
readiness. The committee is also aware of efforts to improve
and forecast material demand, which would enable more timely
procurement actions to support the public shipyards.
The committee encourages the Navy to better communicate the
capability of their submarine forecasting model and its impact
on material obsolescence and manufacturing capability in
industry to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives. The committee also encourages the
Navy to communicate needs in a timely fashion, such as a need
for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation funding, in
order to further reduce material and parts availability issues
at public shipyards.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
support shipbuilding industrial base initiatives in order to
maintain readiness and a strong submarine industrial base.

Supporting and expanding the submarine sub-contracting industrial base

The committee believes that expanding the capability and
capacity of the submarine industrial base workforce is
imperative to keeping pace with Navy shipbuilding requirements.
Numerous manufacturing capabilities must be addressed,
including the need for more qualified and Navy-certified
welders.
The committee is concerned that the Navy-certified welding
workforce may be insufficient to meet Navy demands on time with
the required quality. The committee understands that Navy-
certified welders must undergo significant training and possess
a higher level of job skills compared to the standard welding
workforce. The committee further understands that the welding
of high strength submarine steel requires welders to be
qualified to MIL-STD-1688 and that this work must be performed
in Navy-certified facilities.
The committee is aware of the need to support the specific
skill sets necessary to enable the Navy to achieve the
submarine build plan. The committee encourages the Navy to
conduct a thorough assessment of the current workforce and
produce a plan for closing the gaps in capability and capacity.

Survivable artillery

The committee understands that there is a need for self-
propelled, survivable 155mm and 105mm howitzer solutions that
can emplace, fire, and displace rapidly enough to evade enemy
counter-battery fires. The committee strongly encourages Army
leaders to allocate funds to acquire both systems in sufficient
quantity to address the requesting units' immediate needs and
to further initiate an Army-wide fielding of these enhanced
capabilities. Light, self-propelled 155mm and 105mm artillery
systems will substantially improve the deterrence posture of
the U.S. Army and allied armies in Europe and Asia that will
face sophisticated, quick-fire counterbattery systems in the
event of a conflict.

Tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base

The committee is concerned that the fiscal year 2020 budget
request reduced funding from what was planned in the future
years defense program for the majority of the Army's tactical
wheeled vehicle fleets, including the Joint Light Tactical
Vehicles, the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, and the Heavy
Expanded Mobile Tactical Trucks. The committee acknowledges
that reducing funding across the light, medium, and heavy
tactical wheeled vehicle fleet could threaten the fragile
networks of suppliers, many of which are small businesses. Such
businesses may be forced to exit the defense industry or cease
operations altogether. In addition, if production does not
support minimum sustaining rates for the tactical wheeled
vehicle industrial base, it would impact overall readiness
rates by reducing the availability of parts and spares.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Army to pursue
predictable funding levels in the future for the tactical
wheeled vehicle industrial base in order to avoid production
breaks that could adversely impact Army readiness and
modernization efforts.

TH-57 replacement

The committee supports the replacement of the Department of
the Navy's current fleet of TH-57 training helicopters with the
Advanced Helicopter Training System, included in the
President's budget request, to ensure continued training of the
student naval aviators in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast
Guard. The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the
Navy to ensure predictable and sufficient funding through the
future years defense program and to work to expedite
procurement of the Advanced Helicopter Training System
aircraft, thereby ensuring that rotary-wing training is not
interrupted.

UH-1N replacement

The committee supports the procurement and fielding of the
MH-139 aircraft as the replacement for the UH-1N. The committee
notes that the contract for up to 84 helicopters, training
devices and associated support equipment, and operations,
maintenance, training systems, and support equipment is valued
at $2.4 billion. The committee also understands that the
fielding of the MH-139 will close significant mission
capability gaps associated with the current fleet of UH-1N
aircraft. The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of
the Air Force to maintain predictable and sufficient funding
through the future years defense program, ensuring that the
critical missions of nuclear deterrence and transportation of
U.S. government and security forces are executed. The committee
also encourages the Air Force to consider expediting
procurement of the MH-139 aircraft.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees on the UH-1N replacement program by October 1, 2019.
That briefing shall include information on the following
topics:
(1) The timeline for procurement and fielding of the
MH-139 at Minuteman III bases;
(2) Any military construction projects needed to
field the helicopter and cost and schedule for any such
projects;
(3) The program costs to procure and operate the MH-
139 fleet; and
(4) The implications of potential program delay for
procurement or operating and support costs.

Unmanned aerial systems training locations

The committee recognizes the vital importance of providing
the best trained unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operators and
maintainers in order to meet operational and training
requirements in support of the National Defense Strategy. In
order to meet the unique and specific training requirements for
UAS operations, the Army needs training locations that
possesses dedicated restricted air space, favorable weather
conditions, access to large military operating areas, varied
types of terrain, and available spectrum.
Therefore, as the Army conducts its assessment of the best
possible locations for UAS training, the committee encourages
the Secretary of the Army to consider the attributes to select
a training location that: (1) Best meets the requirements of
training; and (2) Possesses the capability to increase
throughput for both initial qualification and unit training.
Further, before any assessment progresses to a stage where
specific courses of action are being evaluated, the committee
directs the Army to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on specific criteria that will be used to
conduct the assessment.

Vehicle Reconnaissance System

The committee is encouraged by the Army's recent award of
the Soldier Borne Sensor (SBS) program. The committee has been
supportive of this program due to the significant need to
provide squads and small units with enhanced intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.
The committee is interested in how this program could
further increase situational awareness in ground combat vehicle
operations. Specifically, the committee is interested in the
potential for adapting the SBS technology to develop a vehicle
reconnaissance system for use on-board ground combat vehicles
and unmanned vehicles. Such a system would allow for on-demand
ISR ahead of vehicles and convoys on the move and around
stationary vehicles.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the
Army and Navy to brief the congressional defense committees,
not later than February 1, 2020, on existing plans for
incorporating a vehicle reconnaissance system into both manned
and unmanned ground combat vehicles. At a minimum, this
briefing should include an assessment of current technologies
being examined and other efforts for incorporating such systems
on current and future vehicle platforms.

Virginia-class hull treatment briefing

The committee is aware of press reporting from 2011 and
2017 that indicated problems with Virginia-class submarine hull
treatments, including delamination.
The committee is concerned that the Virginia-class
submarine program may continue to experience challenges with
hull treatments, including with the ``Mold-in-Place'' (MIP)
material.
Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy,
not later than October 1, 2019, to provide a briefing to the
Senate Armed Services Committee that describes the following
related to the Virginia-class submarine program: (1) Past and
current challenges with hull treatments; (2) Percentage of
original hull treatment remaining on each delivered Virginia-
class submarine; (3) Cost of MIP repair and replacement by
Virginia-class submarine hull number; (4) Assessment of the
operational implications of degraded hull treatments,
specifically reduced MIP coverage, including interruptions of
operational tasking; (5) Root causes and corrective actions for
hull treatment deficiencies; and (6) The approach to hull
treatments on the Columbia-class submarine program.

Western Army Aviation Training Site (WAATS) for FMS

The committee acknowledges that the Western Army Aviation
Training Site (WAATS) in Marana, Arizona, is a premier rotary
wing training location and is integral to the mission of the
U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) to provide
trained and ready aircrews in support the National Defense
Strategy. However, the committee notes that the required
increase of U.S. personnel throughput at the USAACE due to
pilot shortages in the Active-Duty component, Army National
Guard, and Army Reserve limits the available training quotas of
foreign military students sent by our allies and partners.
The WAATS currently provides both rated and nonrated crew
flight training for both U.S. and foreign military students in
UH-60 Blackhawk and UH-72 Lakota aircraft courses and possesses
excess capacity to assist USAACE throughput. Additionally, the
WAATS provides hundreds of square miles of airspace
specifically dedicated to aviation training and an above
average number of days allowing flight operations.
Therefore, the committee requires the Secretary of the Army
to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee, not later than
October, 1, 2019, on the aviation training at the WAATS and
include the:
(1) Forecasted schedule for UH-60 and UH-72 flight training
courses in fiscal years 2020-2023;
(2) Feasibility and suitability of the WAATS to conduct all
foreign military flight training for UH-60 and UH-72 courses;
(3) Excess capacity at the WAATS, including classrooms,
simulators, hangar space, and aircraft parking; and
(4) Potential expansion of training missions at the WAATS.

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

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for research, development, test, and
evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201
of division D of this Act.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Development and acquisition strategy to procure secure, low probability
of detection data link network capability (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) and Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) to develop a joint development and acquisition
strategy to procure a resilient, low latency, and low
probability of detection data link network capability that
would enable effective operation in the contested environments
highlighted in the National Defense Strategy. The strategy's
solution should ensure that the network is affordable with
minimal impact to existing host platforms and minimal overall
integration costs. The CSAF and CNO would submit the strategy
to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1,
2020.
Additionally, the provision would limit the obligation or
expenditure of fiscal year 2020 funds for operation and
maintenance for the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
and the Office of the Secretary of the Navy to 50 percent of
those funds until 15 days after submission of the plan required
in the provision.
Establishment of secure next-generation wireless network (5G)
infrastructure for the Nevada Test and Training Range and base
infrastructure (sec. 212)
The committee recommends a provision, funded elsewhere in
this Act, that would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a secure fifth generation (5G) wireless network at
the Nevada Test and Training Range as part of the Department of
Defense (DOD) test infrastructure in order to provide an
advanced cellular range for the Department. The committee
recognizes the revolutionary effect that 5G technology will
have on the DOD. However, the committee is concerned that the
DOD lacks the ability to test and develop tactics to leverage
5G technology as well as to negate enemy use of this advanced
capability.
In addition, the provision would require the installation
of a secure 5G base infrastructure network at a second location
in order to improve the DOD's understanding of the impacts of
5G technology on continental United States base operations.
Limitation and report on Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment
2 enduring capability (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of any funds for fiscal year 2020
for the Army's Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2
(IFPC Inc 2) enduring capability program until the Secretary of
the Army submits a report to the congressional defense
committees containing: (1) An assessment of whether the
enduring IFPC Inc 2 requirements are still relevant for the
threat anticipated for the period when the program would be
fielded; (2) A list of candidate systems considered for IFPC
Inc 2, including those developed outside of the Army; (3) An
assessment of the systems against representative threats; (4)
An assessment of other relevant characteristics, including cost
of development, cost per round, technological maturity, and
logistics and sustainment; and (5) A plan for how the Army
would integrate the chosen system into the Integrated Air and
Missile Defense Battle Command System.
The provision would also require the Secretary of the Army
to identify a program of record in the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2021 that addresses the Army's
responsibility per Department of Defense Directive 5100.01 to
``conduct air and missile defense to support joint campaigns,''
specifically as it pertains to defense against supersonic
cruise missiles.
The committee notes that the Army's plan to procure two
Iron Dome batteries in accordance with section 112 of the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-232) meets the intent of the Congress as
an interim solution for defense against cruise missiles. The
committee is concerned, however, that the Army has artificially
constrained the options considered for the enduring program,
including holding some candidate systems to different standards
than other systems and excluding some options altogether.
Further, the committee is concerned that the requirements for
IFPC Inc 2 are not representative of the current threat posed
to U.S. and allied air bases and other fixed sites in theater
and will be even further disconnected from the future threat.
The committee commends the efforts of Army Futures Command in
this area thus far and encourages the command to aggressively
pursue a technological solution that will provide the defense
necessary to enable joint theater campaign plans.
Electromagnetic spectrum sharing research and development program (sec.
214)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Administrator of
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
and the Federal Communications Commission, to establish an
electromagnetic spectrum sharing research and development
program for fifth-generation wireless network technologies,
Federal systems, and non-Federal incumbent systems that would
focus on expanding sharing of electromagnetic spectrum. The
committee believes that this program is important in assessing
the benefits and risks to the Department of Defense (DOD) of
spectrum sharing and its impacts on the warfighter.
The provision would require, within 180 days, the
establishment of test beds to demonstrate the potential of
cohabitation between these systems. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
appropriate Federal agencies, to propose a strategy to
integrate Federal and non-Federal electromagnetic spectrum
enterprises not later than May 1, 2020. The Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Administrator and the
Commission, would also provide to the relevant congressional
committees periodic briefings on the status of the test beds,
including the incorporation of sharing technologies into
international standards, and reports identifying
recommendations to facilitate sharing frameworks in the bands
of electromagnetic spectrum that are the subject of the test
beds.
Sense of the Senate on the Advanced Battle Management System (sec. 215)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the Air Force's approach to the Advanced
Battle Management System (ABMS). The committee is supportive of
the Air Force's vision for the ABMS as a system of systems that
can integrate and fuse data from disaggregated sensors.
However, the committee remains concerned about the speed of
fielding based on the current projected end of life for the
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System aircraft.
Modification of proof of concept commercialization program (sec. 216)
The committee recommends a provision that would make the
pilot program authorized in section 1603 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66; 10 U.S.C. 2359 note) permanent. The provision would also
add a section that includes commercialization of dual-use
technology with a focus on priority defense technology areas
that attract public and private sector funding as well as
private sector investment capital, including from venture
capital firms in the United States.
Modification of Defense quantum information science and technology
research and development program (sec. 217)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 234 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) by
specifying a list of organizations to be consulted in
developing the research and investment plan required in the
provision and by requiring the Department of Defense to
develop, in coordination with appropriate Federal entities, a
taxonomy for quantum science activities and requirements for
relevant technology and standards.
Technology and National Security Fellowship (sec. 218)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
technology and national security fellowship for individuals
that possess an undergraduate or graduate degree that focuses
on science, technology, engineering, or mathematics course
work.
Direct Air Capture and Blue Carbon Removal Technology Program (sec.
219)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of
other Federal agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary
of Defense, to carry out a program on the research,
development, testing, evaluation, study, and demonstration of
technologies related to blue carbon capture and direct air
capture.

Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

National security emerging biotechnologies research and development
program (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a coordinated research
program in emerging biotechnologies. The committee notes that
advances are occurring in biotechnology at an intersection of
traditional biology, synthetic biology, engineering, and
biotechnology. Advances in these areas could lead to
improvement in many capabilities relevant to defense missions,
including enhancing servicemembers' performance, increasing
lethality and survivability, and improving battlefield
healthcare. This progress could also yield commercial advances
in areas such as gene editing, cloning, and faster development
of new drugs and vaccines.
Such potential advances in emerging biotechnologies
include: new bacteria or implantable devices that could enhance
warfighter cognitive and physical performance; improved
information and information use to create more realistic
computer simulations of warfighter physiology; development of
biosensors to monitor warfighter performance or environmental
conditions; engineered biomaterials for defense applications;
and improved novel wound-healing or casualty care and diagnosis
technologies and systems.
The committee believes that the Department needs a
coordinated research effort to ensure that programs in this
area are consistently aligned to current DOD strategies and
informed by global and commercial developments in the field.
Further, since these technologies may also develop into future
threats to the military and the Nation, the provision would
require the Department to develop policies on the control of
research information and products as needed to protect national
security. The provision would further require the Secretary of
Defense, in carrying out this program, to develop strong
partnerships with industry, universities, and interagency
partners so that the DOD can leverage the best investments made
across the country and world and to ensure that the
biotechnology research mission area is served by the best
possible technical talent and world-class research facilities.
Cyber science and technology activities roadmap and reports (sec. 232)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to
develop a roadmap for the science and technology activities of
the Department of Defense in support of the Department's cyber
needs and missions. The provision would also require the Under
Secretary to submit an annual report on these activities. The
committee believes that long-term science and technology cyber
research is critical to developing capabilities that will
enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in
the long run.
Requiring certain microelectronics products and services meet trusted
supply chain and operational security standards (sec. 233)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish, by January 1, 2021, supply
chain and operational security standards and requirements for
microelectronics and to purchase microelectronics and related
services to the maximum practicable extent from providers that
meet these standards. In addition, the provision would require
that the Secretary ensure that manufacturers of secure
microelectronics are able to use the same production lines,
facilities, and personnel for microelectronics products and
related services intended for both Department of Defense (DOD)
and commercial end-uses. The provision would require the
Secretary to take such actions as are necessary and appropriate
to foster a competitive secure industrial base. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional
defense committees on the supply chain and operational security
standards not later than February 1, 2021.
The committee believes that changes are needed to the
traditional approach to ensuring a supply of trusted
microelectronics. The current approach is not economical for
existing or prospective suppliers of trusted microelectronics,
because the DOD buys most of its microelectronics from purely
commercial companies and prevents its trusted suppliers from
selling commercially products that are built on trusted
microelectronics production lines. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to work with Five Eyes partners, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, and other allies to
promote a shared secure microelectronics industrial base for
secure 5G and other applications.
The committee believes that the standards and procurement
preferences that the DOD develops for secure microelectronics
products and services should be developed such that they are
applicable for adoption by the Federal government, our allies,
the carriers implementing 5G wireless networks, critical
infrastructure, and other industrial sectors where security and
trust are vital. The committee also encourages the Secretary of
Defense to continue pursuing additional means to secure
microelectronics. These include split fabrication approaches,
design and engineering innovations to defeat theft and
compromise, and other measures to achieve security on networks
and using devices that are not trusted.
Technical correction to Global Research Watch Program (sec. 234)
The committee recommends a provision that makes a technical
correction to section 2365 of title 10, United States Code.
Additional technology areas for expedited access to technical talent
(sec. 235)
The committee recommends a provision that would add rapid
prototyping and infrastructure resilience to the technical
areas eligible for the rapid contracting processes authorized
under section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91). The committee notes that
these processes are intended to give Department of Defense
(DOD) officials expedited access to world-class technical
talent at universities, for the purposes of providing technical
analyses, engineering support, and other expert services. The
committee notes that the Nation's universities have significant
capacity to support the DOD in these ways, as a complement to
their current robust efforts in basic research, and that many
university faculty and staff already work with industry,
including the defense industry, in these kinds of activities.
Finally, the committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has
yet to comply with the mandate to establish a contractual
mechanism to execute the original provision. The committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering to jointly deliver an annotated briefing to the
congressional defense committees on actions taken to comply
with this mandate, no later than February 1, 2020.
Sense of the Senate and periodic briefings on the security and
availability of fifth-generation (5G) wireless network
technology and production (sec. 236)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the importance of secure fifth-
generation (5G) wireless networks for the Department of
Defense. The provision would also include a requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to provide quarterly briefings to the
congressional defense committees on Department of Defense (DOD)
activities to develop and utilize secure 5G wireless networking
technology. The committee understands that utilization of
secure 5G wireless networking technology will be critical to
achieving future warfighting advantages. The committee is
frustrated by the slow pace of DOD research and adoption of
these technologies and encourages the DOD to brief the
committee on all efforts underway to advance secure 5G wireless
networks.
Transfer of Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (sec. 237)
The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not later than March 1, 2020, the transfer of responsibilities
for the authority, direction, and control of the Combating
Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) from the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering (USD(R&E)). The committee believes that the mission
of the CTTSO to ``identify and develop capabilities to combat
terrorism and irregular adversaries and to deliver these
capabilities to Department of Defense components and
interagency partners through rapid research and development''
is better aligned with the mission and responsibilities of the
USD(R&E). Additionally, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to report on CTTSO's efforts in relation
to the implementation of the National Defense Strategy.
Briefing on cooperative defense technology programs and risks of
technology transfer to China or Russia (sec. 238)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on cooperative defense
technology programs of the Department of Defense and mitigation
of the risk of technology transfer, relevant to these programs,
to the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation.
Modification of authority for prizes for advanced technology
achievements (sec. 239)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment to award prizes as part of competitions to
develop or demonstrate technologies relevant to defense
missions. The committee notes the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's and the Services' successful use of these
types of prize competitions, which have spurred the advancement
of robotics, driverless cars, and cybersecurity technologies.
Use of funds for Strategic Environmental Research Program,
Environmental Security Technical Certification Program, and
Operational Energy Capability Improvement (sec. 240)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to expend specific amounts appropriated
for fiscal year 2020 for the Strategic Environmental Research
Program, Operational Energy Capability Improvement, and
Security Technical Certification Program.
Funding for the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear analysis of
alternatives (sec. 241)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the amount of funding available by $5.0 million for the
Department of the Navy's analysis of alternatives regarding a
nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). The provision
would also require the Secretary of Defense to create a program
of record for the SLCM-N, a capability that could be carried by
U.S. nuclear submarines in the future.
Review and assessment pertaining to transition of Department of
Defense-originated dual-use technology (sec. 242)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to
conduct a review of the Department of Defense science and
technology enterprise's intellectual property and strategy for
awarding exclusive commercial rights to industry partners and
submit a report summarizing the results of this review to the
congressional defense committees no later than May 1, 2020.
This review would study: the Department's intellectual property
and commercialization rights management; the Department's
efforts to promote the commercialization of DOD-funded
research; the potential for prize-based research as an
alternative to traditional research funding; and the potential
of DOD's funding of basic and applied research for public use
and without commercialization monopolies, akin to the
Extramural Research Program of the National Institutes of
Health, as an alternative to traditional research funding.
The committee understands that much of the Department of
Defense's (DOD) science and technology investment and
especially its basic research--for example, some of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency's cybersecurity research--is
predicated on the transfer of DOD-originated dual-use
technology to members of the defense industrial base and the
broader commercial sector. The committee is also aware of a
growing body of economics research on the frictions associated
with intellectual property and exclusive commercialization
monopolies.

Budget Items

Army

Defense research sciences for counter unmanned aerial vehicle research
The budget request included $298.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 61102A
defense research sciences.
The committee notes the importance of basic research in
meeting long-term national security needs and supports
increased counter-unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) university
research. The committee is aware of the proliferation and
increased capabilities of UAS, and research is needed to
respond to this growing threat.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $303.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE
61102A for basic research.
3D printing research
The budget request included $86.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 61104A
university and industry research centers.
The committee notes the importance of increased basic
research for fundamental scientific knowledge related to long-
term national security needs, and the committee supports
increased research for 3D printing.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million, for a total of $88.2 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE
61104A for 3D printing research.
Cyber Collaborative Research Alliance
The budget request included $5.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 61121A
Cyber Collaborative Research Alliance.
The committee notes the importance of cyber basic research
and supports increased cyber collaboration with the Cyber
Collaboration Research Alliance. The committee believes that
long-term science and technology cyber research is critical to
developing capabilities that will enable the warfighter to
maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long run.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $10.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE
61121A for cyber basic research.
Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region
The budget request included $115.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE62143A
Soldier Lethality Technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million, for a
total of $118.3 million, for RDT&E, Army, for PE 62143A for
camouflage, concealment, and deception materiel in support of
the Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region. This
increase would support essential capabilities for Multi-Domain
Operations-Pacific as described in the Chief of Staff of the
Army's unfunded priorities list.
The committee supports the efforts of the Army and U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) to develop capabilities and
operational concepts to maintain or restore the comparative
military advantage of the United States in the Indo-Pacific
region and to reduce the risk of executing contingency plans of
the Department of Defense. As it develops, the Multi-Domain
Task Force will have significant implications for force
posture, force structure, and procurement priorities. Going
forward, the committee urges the Department of the Army and
INDOPACOM to keep the committee fully apprised of developments
relating to activities associated with the Multi-Domain Task
Force.

Advanced materials manufacturing processes

The budget request included $35.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62144A
ground technology.
The committee is aware that advances in novel manufacturing
could allow for the development of materials and components
with superior properties and performance. The committee
understands that the application of modeling tools in the
development of new manufacturing techniques, such as additive
manufacturing, could enable the production of new materials
that provide increased strength, hardness, and ductility. These
alloys could be useful in applications such as armor and would
be a critical enabling technology that could increase
warfighter protection.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62144A for advanced materials
manufacturing processes research.

Biopolymer structural materials research

The budget request included $35.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62144A
ground technologies.
The committee notes the importance of earthen structures to
support force protection missions for deployed forces. To
improve the protective capacities of these structures, reduce
potential harmful medical impacts of many structural materials,
and reduce costs of building and maintaining these structures,
the committee notes the value of research in the use of soil
microbiological systems and biopolymers to improve native soils
for military earthen structures construction. This type of
research is also consistent with the Department of Defense's
emphasis on the importance of synthetic biology and
biotechnology to defense missions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62144A for applied research on
biopolymer structural materials.

Advanced materials for infrastructure

The budget request included $35.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62144A
for applied research on ground technology.
The committee notes the importance of biology research to
meet long-term national security needs and supports increased
research on cellulose structural materials that will improve
Army force projection capabilities through the development and
deployment of rapidly manufacturable, lightweight, and low-cost
construction materials, structural systems, and bridging
systems, including identification and characterization of
materials that could be sourced locally during deployment.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62144A for research in cellulose
nanocomposite-based structural materials for light weight,
lower life cycle and logistics costs, and increased use of
local materials to meet Army requirements.

Next Generation Combat Vehicle technology

The budget request included $219.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62145A
Next Generation Combat Vehicle Technology.
The Department of Defense faces growing challenges in
providing increasingly efficient operational energy, when and
where it is needed to meet the demands of the National Defense
Strategy. The committee understands that the Energy Storage and
Power Systems incorporate composite flywheel-based technology
and may address several energy objectives for the Army, such
as: (1) Increased power efficiencies; (2) Maximized use of
renewables; (3) Reduced system energy consumption with improved
size, weight, and power; (4) Extended operational duration,
reducing the need for energy resupply; and (5) Enhanced
environmental characteristics.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62145A.

Composite tube and propulsion research

The budget request included $74.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62147A
long range precision fires technology.
The committee notes the need for improved artillery tubes
and improved propulsion for 105mm and 155mm howitzers. The
committee believes that research to develop technologies for
lighter, shorter tubes could potentially support stronger
propulsion and extend the range of projectiles in support of
the National Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62147A for composite tube and
propulsion research.

Printed armament components

The budget request included $74.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62147A
long range precision fires technology.
The committee is aware of continued investment in additive
manufacturing technologies to rapidly design, prototype, and
manufacture critical novel printed armaments components. These
technologies could be used to print replacement parts,
customizable grenades, and embedded electronics. The committee
is encouraged by progress made toward the eventual goal of
fully printing munitions on a single production line in an
ammunition plant.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62147A for applied research in
long range precision fires technology.

C3I Applied Cyber

The budget request included $18.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62213A
C3I Applied Cyber.
The committee believes that long-term science and
technology cyber research is critical to developing
capabilities that will enable the warfighter to maintain
dominance in cyberspace in the long run.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million, for a
total of $23.9 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE 62213A for
applied cyber research.

Female warfighter performance research

The budget request included $99.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 62787A
medical technologies.
The committee notes the importance of leveraging academic
research to better understand the unique challenges facing the
female warfighter. The committee notes that additional research
and technology development must be conducted to optimize
equipment, protective gear, medical treatments, and nutrition
for female warfighters. The committee also notes that there is
a lack of data on female warfighter performance in previous
studies, which for the most part only included males as
research subjects--leaving servicewomen largely unresearched
and yielding a gap in the scientific literature on female
performance outcomes under different stresses.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million, for a total of $102.2 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE
62787A for additional research on performance of the female
warfighter,

Long duration battery storage

The budget request included $12.1 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $66.1
million was for the PE 0603119A Ground Advanced Technology.
The committee believes that, in order to improve combat
capability and resilience on installations, the Department of
Defense must invest in and acquire on-site long duration
battery storage for at least 100 hours, in the event of an
intentional or unintentional power outage.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 0603119A for the development and
eventual demonstration of a 100-hour battery for distributed
energy assets.

Computational manufacturing engineering

The budget request included $12.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63119A
for ground advanced technology.
The committee understands that defense components are often
designed and manufactured with assumptions made about the
environment in which they will be used. The committee notes
that collecting data on these systems can be used to optimize
their designs through the use of computational materials
engineering software.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63119A for computational
manufacturing engineering.

Lightweight protective and hardening materials research

The budget request included $12.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63119A
ground advanced technology.
The committee understands the importance of conducting
material development research to develop lightweight protective
and hardening materials usable as either a standalone or
composite protective element. These materials can be applied to
a wide range of field conditions and environments.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63119A for increased research in
lightweight protective and hardening materials.

Robotic construction research

The budget request included $12.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63119A
ground advanced technology.
The committee is aware of the challenges in constructing
expeditionary structures for the Department of Defense (DOD).
The current methods for building structures on the battlefield
present numerous challenges to ensuring warfighter safety,
security, and efficiencies. The committee understands that
development of a robotic arm and robotic vehicle could
potentially allow larger structures to be built. Therefore, the
committee supports an increase in robotic construction
research.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63119A for robotic construction
research.

Ground vehicle sustainment research

The budget request included $160.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63462A
Next Generation Combat Vehicle Advanced Technology Development.
The committee notes the potential for using emerging
additive manufacturing techniques for on-demand production of
replacement parts, in both depot repair and deployed
environments. The committee notes that more work remains to be
done to improve these manufacturing techniques, understand the
materials being produced by these techniques, and ensure that
the materials meet all safety and reliability standards.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63462A for ground vehicle
sustainment research on the use of additive manufacturing for
advanced technology development.

Next generation combat vehicle advanced technology for fuel cell
propulsion and autonomous driving control

The budget request included $160.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63462A
Next Generation Combat Vehicle Advanced Technology.
The committee notes the importance of hydrogen fuel cell
propulsion and autonomous driving control and encourages the
Department of Defense to continue research in this area to
maintain a military advantage.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63462A for advanced technology
development in fuel cell propulsion and autonomous driving
control.

Hypersonics testing research

The budget request included $174.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63464A
long range precision fires advanced technology.
The committee notes that the development of hypersonics
capabilities is a key element of the National Defense Strategy
and represents an area of intense technological competition
between the United States, People's Republic of China, and
Russian Federation.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63464A for hypersonics research
and testing.

Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA)

The budget request included $459.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 63801A
Aviation Advanced Development, of which $31.9 million is for
the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) and Capability
Set 3 (CS3).
The Army also identified on the unfunded priority list a
shortfall in funding of $75.6 million for PE 63801A to
accelerate the CS3 program.
The committee notes that the current acquisition strategy
for FLRAA/CS3 represents a traditional approach; however, the
committee understands that the Army is considering multiple
courses of action to accelerate this program through the use of
acquisition reform authorities. Further, the committee
understands that the Army recently completed the Joint Multi-
Role Technology Demonstration effort that successfully
demonstrated several transformational vertical lift
capabilities and technologies. As such, the committee believes
that the Army should be in a position to reasonably accelerate
the FLRAA/CS3 schedule and acquisition strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.6
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 63801A.

Hypersonic weapon system

The budget request included $228.0 million in in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 64182A
Hypersonics. The Chief of Staff of the Army identified a
shortfall in funding for this program in his unfunded
priorities list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $130.6
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 64182A to accelerate the
development of hypersonic weapon systems.

Next Generation Squad Weapon--Automatic Rifle

The budget request included $106.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 64601A
Infantry Support Weapons, of which $33.1 million is for Next
Generation Squad Weapon--Automatic Rifle.
The Army also identified a shortfall in funding of $19.9
million for PE 64601A to fund rapid prototyping agreements on
the unfunded priority list.
The committee acknowledges the need to improve close combat
lethality in support of the National Defense Strategy and the
need to field weapon systems that improve standoff, ballistics,
and penetrating power.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.9
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 64601A.

Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army

The budget request included $142.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65018A
Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army.
The committee is concerned about unjustified cost growth
and poor business process reengineering.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $142.8
million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE
65018A.

Army contract writing system

The budget request included $19.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65047A
Army Contract Writing System.
The committee remains concerned about duplication among the
Services in contract writing systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.7
million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Army, for PE
65047A.

Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2

The budget request contained $243.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65052A
Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2--Block
1. Of this, $73.2 million was requested to support the interim
IFPC solution and $39.3 million was proposed to support the
enduring solution, in accordance with section 112 of the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-232).
The committee notes that, while the Army in February 2019
issued a letter of intent to procure two batteries of Iron Dome
to meet the requirement articulated in section 112 of the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-232) for an interim cruise missile defense
capability, this decision was predicated on submission and
approval of an above threshold reprogramming (ATR) by mid-April
2019. Because of the delay in submission of the ATR to the
congressional defense committees, the committee is concerned
that the Army will be unable meet the statutory requirement for
interim base defense. Therefore, the committee recommends a
realignment elsewhere in this report that would support
procurement of two Iron Dome batteries with fiscal year 2020
funds. The committee notes that, should the ATR be fully
approved before the end of fiscal year 2019, this realignment
would no longer be necessary.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.6
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65052A for IFPC Increment 2 for
Iron Dome testing and delivery.

Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 EMAM

The budget request included $243.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65052A
Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2--Block
1. The request includes $124.2 million for the development of
the Expanded Mission Area Missile interceptor. The committee
believes that funds for the development of the interceptor,
before a defined solution for the enduring IFPC Increment 2 is
selected, are ahead of need.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $124.2
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65052A.

Multi-Domain Artillery

The budget request included $243.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65052A
Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC) Increment 2--Block
1. The Chief of Staff of the Army requested funding for Multi-
Domain Artillery in his unfunded priorities list.
The committee supports the efforts of the Army and U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) to develop capabilities and
operational concepts to maintain or restore the comparative
military advantage of the United States in the Indo-Pacific
region and to reduce the risk of executing contingency plans of
the Department of Defense. As it develops, the command's Multi-
Domain Task Force will have significant implications for force
posture, force structure, and procurement priorities. Going
forward, the committee urges the Department of the Army and
INDOPACOM to keep the committee fully apprised of developments
relating to activities associated with the Multi-Domain Task
Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65052A for multi-domain
artillery.

Ground Robotics Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET)

The budget request included $41.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65053A
Ground Robotics, Squad Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-
MET).
The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $12.8
million from PE 65053A within RDT&E, Army, for S-MET to line
138 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA).
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.8
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65053A.

Next Generation Combat Vehicle 50mm gun

The budget request included $378.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65625A
Manned Ground Vehicle.
The Army also identified a shortfall in funding of $40.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65625A on the unfunded priority
list for the procurement of 15 XM-913 weapon systems (50mm gun,
ammunition handling system, and fire control hardware).
The committee acknowledges the need to improve lethality
for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle to retain overmatch in
support of the National Defense Strategy and the need to field
weapon systems that improve standoff and survivability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65625A for 50mm gun upgrades.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

The budget request included $2.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65812A
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Engineering and
Manufacturing Development.
The Army has requested a zero sum realignment of $4.5
million from line number 6 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), to
PE 65812A in RDT&E, Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.5
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65812A.

Cybersecurity threat simulation research

The budget request included $14.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 64256A
Threat Simulator Development.
The committee notes the importance of cybersecurity to
long-term national security needs and supports increased
research in cybersecurity threat simulation to model emerging
and proliferating threats to weapons systems and networks.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 64256A.

Directed energy test capabilities

The budget request included $334.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 65601A
Army Test Ranges and Facilities.
The committee notes that directed energy is a key
technology for the implementation of the National Defense
Strategy. The committee further notes that the FY 2018-FY 2028
Strategic Plan for DOD T&E Resources indicated that the demand
for directed energy test capabilities will soon expand from
demand for testing to address specific objectives of laboratory
demonstrations to demand for testing to address requirements
for validating a weapon system for operational use. The plan
also indicated that past and projected activities point to the
necessity for growth in directed energy test capability and
workforce and called for increased collaboration across the
directed energy technology development and test communities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 65601A to fund directed energy
test range capabilities.

CD ATACMS

The budget request included no funding in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 23802A
Other Missile Product Improvement Programs.
The committee notes that the Chief of Staff of the Army
requested funding in his unfunded priorities list for Cross-
Domain Army Tactical Missile Systems (CD ATACMS).
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $24.1
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 23802A for the CD ATACMS.

Nanoscale materials manufacturing

The budget request included $59.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, for PE 78045A
End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities to support Army
manufacturing technology activities.
The committee notes that the government-wide National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which includes the Department
of Defense, has highlighted that nanotechnology research, and
the eventual nanomanufacturing of products, requires advanced
and often very expensive equipment and facilities. Further the
NNI program has indicated that, in order to realize the
potential of nanotechnology, agencies should invest heavily in
nanomanufacturing research and infrastructure.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in RDT&E, Army, for PE 78045A to increase Army efforts
in developing nanoscale materials manufacturing capabilities.

Navy

University Research Initiatives

The budget request included $116.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 61103N
University Research Initiatives.
The committee notes the importance of basic research in
supporting long-term national security needs and supports
increasing cyber basic research. The committee believes that
long-term science and technology cyber research is critical to
developing capabilities that will enable the warfighter to
maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long run.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $126.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
61103N for basic research.

Carbon capture increase

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied
Research.
The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act the
committee recommends a provision that requires the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of such other
Federal agencies as the Secretary of Defense considers
appropriate, to carry out a program on research, development,
testing, evaluation, study, and demonstration of technologies
related to blue carbon capture and direct air capture.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N for electric propulsion
research for carbon capture.

Electric propulsion research

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied
Research.
The committee supports increased electronic propulsion
research to support the Navy's emerging need to align platform
electric power systems with mission systems development and to
address the importance of energy management and storage as part
of integrated power and energy systems solutions for naval
ships and vessels.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N for electric propulsion
research.

Energy resilience research

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied
Research.
The committee notes that, as the Navy develops and fields
increasing numbers of high-power sensors and weapon systems,
the importance of the energy resilience of these systems
continues to increase. Energy resilient systems will improve
performance, reduce costs, and reduce logistical burdens on
operational forces.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N for energy resilience
research.

Force protection applied research

The budget request included $119.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62123N
Force Protection Applied Research.
The committee supports a program reduction to increase
coordination of activities in material research across the
Department of Defense to reduce duplication of effort.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N.

Test bed for autonomous ship systems

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$119.5 million was for PE 62123N Force Protection Applied
Research.
The committee understands that autonomous naval vessels
could be required to operate for more than a month between
performances of human-assisted maintenance. As a result, the
machinery on such vessels must be robust, resilient, and
reliable, requiring the ability to avoid failures, repair
damage, and redirect systems as needed.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 62123N.

Interdisciplinary cyber research

The budget request included $56.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62131M
Marine Corps Landing Force Technology.
The committee notes the importance of cybersecurity to
long-term national security needs and supports increased
interdisciplinary cybersecurity research. The committee
believes that long-term science and technology cyber research
is critical for developing capabilities that will enable the
warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in the long run.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million, for a total of $59.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
62131M for interdisciplinary cyber research.

Common picture applied research

The budget request included $49.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62235N
Common Picture Applied Research.
The committee supports a program reduction in common
picture applied research and encourages the Navy to increase
coordination of space activities with other research activities
throughout the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $44.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
62235N.

Applied warfighter safety and performance research

The budget request included $63.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62236N
Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research.
The committee notes the importance of warfighter safety and
performance research in enhancing the individual performance of
elite operators under adverse and extreme conditions. The
committee is aware that research to study and mitigate the
effects of stresses to human safety, performance, and
resilience, especially undersea, will result in better care for
warfighters conducting missions that require exposure to
extreme environments. The committee supports increased research
to address undersea diving stresses, including: pressure
extremes, extended low temperature exposure, neurologic
dysfunction, and chemical and oxygen toxicity.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million, for a total of $65.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
62236N for applied warfighter safety and performance research.

Electromagnetic systems applied research

The budget request included $83.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62271N
Electromagnetic Systems Applied Research.
The committee supports a program reduction in
electromagnetic systems applied research and encourages the
Navy to increase coordination in electronic warfare activities
with the rest of the Department of Defense's related activities
to reduce duplication of effort.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $78.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
62271N.

Navy industry-university undersea vehicle technologies

The budget request included $57.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 62747N
Undersea Warfare Applied Research.
The committee notes that the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessment's recent report titled ``The Emerging Era
In Undersea Warfare'' noted that ``America's superiority in
undersea warfare is the product of decades of research and
development (R&D), a sophisticated defense industrial base,
operational experience, and high-fidelity training. This
superiority, however, is far from assured.'' The committee
notes the importance of industry-university partnerships and
recognizes their valuable role in advancing undersea vehicle
technology to support undersea warfare capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5
million, for a total of $64.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
62747N for university-industry partnerships in applied research
to support undersea warfare capabilities.

USMC Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)

The budget request included $172.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 63640M
United States Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration.
The committee supports a program reduction in order to
consolidate efforts in artificial intelligence, machine
learning, and similar areas in which separate research and
development activities are occurring across the Services and to
ensure coordination and reduce duplication of effort across the
Department of Defense.
The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in
RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63640M.

Mobile Unmanned/Manned Distributed Lethality Airborne Network

The budget request included $172.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 63640M
United States Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration.
The committee supports the development of capabilities to
further the ability of aircraft, sensors, and command and
control assets to share information and recognizes that the
mobile unmanned/manned distributed lethality airborne network,
one such capability, is listed on the Chief of Naval
Operations' unfunded priority list. The committee is concerned
that the lack of funding in fiscal year 2020 will delay the
development of an objective system.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 63640M for the continued
maturation and development of the mobile unmanned/manned
distributed lethality airborne network.

Innovative Naval Prototypes (INP) advance technology development

The budget request included $133.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 63801N
Innovative Naval Prototypes advance technology development.
The committee supports a program reduction in innovative
naval prototype development in the area of electronic maneuver
and encourages continued coordination of these efforts across
the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $127.3 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63801N for naval prototype development in the area of
electronic maneuver.

Littoral battlespace sensing autonomous undersea vehicle

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $32.6
million was for PE 63207N Air and Ocean Tactical Applications.
The committee understands that additional funding could
provide for the procurement of 1 additional REMUS 600 littoral
battlespace sensing autonomous undersea vehicle, which would
accelerate the achievement of Navy inventory goals.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million, for a total of $38.6 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63207N.

Large unmanned surface vessels

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$507.0 million was for PE 63502N Surface and Shallow Water Mine
Countermeasures.
The committee notes that the budget request for this
program element provides for the prototyping and testing of
Large Unmanned Surface Vessels (LUSV), including procurement of
two additional LUSVs in conjunction with a Strategic
Capabilities Office (SCO) initiative, in project 3066. The
committee understands that the two LUSVs procured by the SCO
beginning in fiscal year 2018, at a cost of $237 million, are
sufficient to achieve the objectives of the SCO initiative,
which is scheduled to be completed in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2021.
The committee is concerned that the budget request's
concurrent approach to LUSV design, technology development, and
integration as well as a limited understanding of the LUSV
concept of employment, requirements, and reliability for
envisioned missions pose excessive acquisition risk for
additional LUSV procurement in fiscal year 2020. The committee
is also concerned by the unclear policy implications of LUSVs,
including ill-defined international unmanned surface vessel
standards and the legal status of armed or potentially armed
LUSVs.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Navy's ``Report
to Congress on the Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of
Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2020'' acknowledges similar
issues: ``Unmanned and optionally-manned systems are not
accounted for in the overall battle force[.] . . . The physical
challenges of extended operations at sea across the spectrum of
competition and conflict, the concepts of operations for these
platforms, and the policy challenges associated with employing
deadly force from autonomous vehicles must be well understood
prior to replacing accountable battle force ships.''
The committee believes that further procurement of LUSVs
should occur only after the lessons learned from the current
SCO initiative have been incorporated into the next
solicitation to enable incremental risk reduction.
In addition, the committee believes that the LUSV program,
which appears likely to exceed the Major Defense Acquisition
Program cost threshold, would benefit from a more rigorous
requirements definition process, analysis of alternatives, and
deliberate acquisition strategy.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $372.5
million, for a total of $134.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63502N.

Advanced submarine system development

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$148.8 million was for PE 63561N Advanced Submarine System
Development.
The committee understands that emergent repairs are needed
at the Acoustic Research Detachment located in Bayview, Idaho,
to prevent delays in critical test programs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $153.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63561N.

Large Surface Combatant concept advanced design

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $81.8
million was for PE 63563N Ship Concept Advanced Design.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
stated in March 2019, referring to the next Large Surface
Combatant (LSC) class of ships, that the ``. . . first question
that we have to do is prove to ourselves that we need a large
surface combatant. What is the unique contribution of something
like that in the face of all these emerging technologies? Right
now the discussions point to the fact that it brings a unique
capability in terms of hous[ing] larger types of weapons,
larger missiles; you certainly get more aperture on a bigger
sensor[.]''
Given the uncertain requirements for the next LSC class of
ships and the lack of clarity on the new systems under
consideration for such class, including the associated
technical maturity of such systems, the committee believes that
funding design efforts for a new LSC class is early to need.
The committee urges the Navy to identify capability gaps,
set LSC requirements, and engage in robust component-level
prototyping of potential new critical systems, including those
related to propulsion, electrical distribution, radar, and
missile launching systems, prior to initiating LSC design
efforts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $24.0
million, for a total of $57.8 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63563N.

Large Surface Combatant preliminary design

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $69.1
million was for PE 63564N Ship Preliminary Design and
Feasibility Studies.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
stated in March 2019, referring to the next Large Surface
Combatant (LSC) class of ships, that the ``... first question
that we have to do is prove to ourselves that we need a large
surface combatant. What is the unique contribution of something
like that in the face of all these emerging technologies? Right
now the discussions point to the fact that it brings a unique
capability in terms of hous[ing] larger types of weapons,
larger missiles; you certainly get more aperture on a bigger
sensor[.]''
Given the uncertain requirements for the next LSC class of
ships and the lack of clarity on the new systems under
consideration for such class, including the associated
technical maturity of such systems, the committee believes that
funding design efforts for a new LSC class is early to need.
The committee urges the Navy to identify capability gaps,
set LSC requirements, and engage in robust component-level
prototyping of potential new critical systems, including those
related to propulsion, electrical distribution, radar, and
missile launching systems, prior to initiating LSC design
efforts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $46.6
million, for a total of $22.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63564N.

Advanced surface machinery system component prototyping

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $25.4
million was for PE 63573N Advanced Surface Machinery Systems.
The committee notes the Chief of Naval Operations stated in
March 2019, referring to the next Large Surface Combatant (LSC)
class of ships, that the ``. . . first question that we have to
do is prove to ourselves that we need a large surface
combatant. What is the unique contribution of something like
that in the face of all these emerging technologies? Right now
the discussions point to the fact that it brings a unique
capability in terms of hous[ing] larger types of weapons,
larger missiles; you certainly get more aperture on a bigger
sensor[.]''
In addition, in testimony before the Subcommittee on
Seapower on March 27, 2019, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition stated in response
to a question related to actions necessary to improve
acquisition performance on lead ships, ``The second piece is
really improved sub-system prototyping like we have done on
Columbia. Try and get everything prototyped as soon as we can.
[The Navy] learn[ed] some lessons on Ford by not having land-
based prototypes for all the subsystems.'' The committee
supports the Assistant Secretary's intent to improve sub-system
prototyping well in advance of difficult-to-reverse ship design
decision points.
The committee urges the Navy to identify capability gaps,
set LSC requirements, and engage in robust component-level
prototyping of potential new critical systems, including those
related to propulsion, electrical distribution, radar, and
missile launching systems, prior to initiating LSC design
efforts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $125.0
million, for a total of $150.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63573N for advanced surface machinery system component
prototyping.

Columbia-class submarines

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$419.1 million was for PE 63595N Columbia-class submarines.
The committee understands that additional funding could
enable reductions in the production time and cost of propulsor
components for Columbia-class submarines through development of
composites technology.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $434.1 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63595N.

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which
$108.5 million was for PE 63596N Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
mission modules.
The committee notes that an operational testing period of
the surface warfare mission package was delayed from fiscal
year 2018 to fiscal year 2019.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $103.5 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
63596N for LCS mission modules.

U.S. Marine Corps Additive Manufacturing Logistics Software Pilot
Program

The budget request included $4.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 64289M
Next Generation Logistics.
The committee notes that the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) has
fielded 165 3D Printers, 5 metal printers, and 1 prototype
concrete printer across the fleet and is seeing great benefit
from their use through innovative programs like Marine Maker.
However, the digital infrastructure to create, support,
document, and provide a digital thread, digital twin, and
augmented reality capability for the parts being manufactured
and used is non-existent. The USMC needs an Additive
Manufacturing Logistics Software Pilot Program and formally
highlighted this need in its unfunded priorities list. The
pilot program would use commercial-off-the-shelf software and
services to support several use cases and lay the groundwork
for providing the digital infrastructure for all USMC next
generation additive manufacturing activities. Funding would
cover government costs, software procurement, and services
support work at multiple US locations.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million, for a
total of $13.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64289M to fund
the USMC Additive Manufacturing Logistics Software Pilot
Program.

Nuclear sea-launched cruise missile

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $19.7
million was for PE 64659N for the Precision Strike Weapon
Development Program. Of this, $5.0 million was designated for a
nuclear sea-launched cruise missile analysis of alternatives
(AoA).
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
this AoA, for a total of $24.7 million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
64659N.

V-22 nacelle improvement program

The budget request included $185.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 64262N
for the V-22.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Common
Configuration-Readiness and Modernization (CC-RAM) nacelle
improvement program for better reliability and commonality
across the fleet of V-22s. Reduced vibrations in nacelles
decreases maintenance degraders and costs while increasing
readiness rates. The committee encourages the Navy and Marine
Corps to test, develop, and incorporate active vibration
control systems for the V-22 nacelles as part of the overall
nacelle improvement program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64262N for nacelle improvements
on the V-22.

Mine Development--Quickstrike JDAM ER

The budget request included $29.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 64601N
Mine Development. The Chief of Naval Operations requested
funding in his unfunded priorities list for the Quickstrike
Joint Direct Attack Munition Extended Range (JDAM ER).
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $71.3
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 64601N for the Quickstrike JDAM
ER.

Information Technology Development

The budget request included $384.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 65013N
Information Technology Development, including $55.4 million for
Electronic Procurement System.
The committee is concerned about developing unnecessarily
bespoke contract writing systems and processes.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.4
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 65013N.

CH-53K King Stallion program

The budget request included $517.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 65212M
CH-53K RDTE.
The committee recognizes that the U.S. Marine Corps
validated a requirement for heavy-lift expeditionary rotary
wing aviation to support ship-to-shore, shore-to-shore, and
shore-to-ship movement of personnel and equipment. The
committee recently approved an above-threshold reprogramming
request for additional funding to continue developmental
testing external to the fiscal year 2020 budgeting cycle.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 65212M.

Ship to Shore Connector

The budget request included $20.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $4.9
million was for PE 65220N Ship to Shore Connector.
The committee understands that additional funding could
enable quality improvements and cost reductions in the Ship to
Shore Connector and Landing Craft Air Cushioned programs
through expanded development and use of composite materials.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $19.9 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
65220N.

Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems

The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, of which $88.4
million was requested for PE 24311N Integrated Surveillance
System.
The committee notes that, since fiscal year 2015, the Navy
has utilized Transformational Reliable Acoustic Path Systems
(TRAPS) in anti-submarine warfare missions. The committee
understands that these deployable systems have performed
satisfactorily and comprise a critical element of the Navy's
overall integrated undersea surveillance system. The committee
is concerned that capability or capacity gaps may result if
additional TRAPS units are not procured in fiscal year 2020.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million, for a total of $103.4 million, in RDT&E, Navy, for PE
24311N for TRAPS.

Intelligent Power Management Systems

The budget request included $37.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, for PE 26624M
Marine Corps Combat Services Support, of which $3.0 million is
for Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Combat Service Support
Element & Supporting Establishment (CSSE & SE).
The committee recognizes the need for the Marine Corps to
reduce logistical requirements in forward deployed areas.
Intelligent Power Management Systems (IPMS) provide a robust,
modular, and scalable solution to interconnect, control, store,
and distribute power from various sources. As a result, with
IPMS, power requirements will be met in a more efficient manner
by matching power production to load demand, reducing spinning
reserve, extending maintenance cycle times, and reducing fuel
consumption.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Navy, for PE 26624M for MAGTF CSSE & SE.

Air Force

High energy X-ray materials structures research

The budget request included $128.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62102F applied research in advanced materials.
The committee notes the importance of advanced materials
high energy X-ray research for better understanding the
characteristics and performance of advanced materials and
structures for Air Force missions, including high temperature
engine materials, advanced sensors, and aerodynamic systems.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense would
benefit from leveraging National Science Federation and
Department of Energy investments in facilities to support Air
Force research needs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62102F for high energy x-
ray materials structures research.

Materials research

The budget request included $128.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62102F applied research in materials.
The committee notes that there is duplicative funding for
material research within the budget request and encourages
increased coordination within the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62102F.

Aerospace Vehicle Technologies

The budget request included $147.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62201F aerospace vehicle technologies.
The committee believes that the increase of these
activities is not fully aligned with other efforts and supports
a reduction in program growth for aerospace vehicle
technologies.
The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in
RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62201F.

Counter unmanned aerial systems research

The budget request included $181.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62788F dominant information sciences and methods.
The committee notes that counter-swarm capabilities are
becoming more critical for Department of Defense (DOD) force
protection. Currently, various development and acquisition
activities are underway to counter the swarming unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) threat, and DOD entities are currently
testing several potential system solutions, but, to date, no
approach provides a complete answer to the threat. The
committee further notes the importance of increased cyber
research and supports increasing cyber and communications
research to support counter-UAS capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62788F for counter-UAS
research.

Cyberspace dominance technology research

The budget request included $181.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62788F dominant information sciences and methods.
The committee notes the importance of increased support for
academic cyber institutes to meet long-term national security
needs in support of the National Defense Strategy. The
committee believes that long-term science and technology cyber
research is critical to developing capabilities that will
enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in
the long run. The committee also understands that the
Department of Defense requires technologies to deliver a full
range of options in cyberspace, akin to its current air and sea
dominance programs, to achieve cyber dominance.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62788F for research in
cyberspace dominance technology research.

Quantum science research

The budget request included $181.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62788F dominant information sciences and methods.
The committee notes the importance of quantum science
research for the implementation of the National Defense
Strategy and in the priorities of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering. This technical area shows
great promise in enhancing defense capabilities in
communications, computing, cryptography, and countless other
areas. The committee notes that there is a global competition
for preeminence in this emerging field.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62788F for quantum science
research.

High power microwave research

The budget request included $44.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
62890F High Energy Laser Research.
The committee supports increased research in high power
microwaves as an element of an emerging set of directed energy
technologies that support the National Defense Strategy and the
priorities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering. High powered microwave capabilities could defeat
adversary electronics systems and create other battlefield
effects.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 62890F for additional high
powered microwave research.

Metals affordability research

The budget request included $36.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63112F Advanced Materials for Weapon Systems.
The committee notes that the Metals Affordability
Initiative is a collaborative effort, which includes the entire
domestic specialty aerospace metals industrial manufacturing
base, to ensure the continued advancement of metals
technologies for the defense and commercial sectors and
continues to grow a robust and responsive aerospace metals
domestic supply base that provides critical turbine engine,
airframe, and space components at lower cost and with shortened
production lead times.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million, for a total of $38.6 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for
PE 63112F for metals affordability research.

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

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63211F Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration.
The committee notes that the development of hypersonics
capabilities is a key element of the National Defense Strategy
and represents an area of intense technological competition
between the United States, People's Republic of China, and
Russian Federation. The committee is encouraged by and
supportive of the Air Force's activities in hypersonic weapons.
However, the committee is concerned that there is a lack of
focus on air-launched and air-breathing hypersonic capability
inside the Department of Defense. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $75.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force,
for PE 63211F for the continued development and transition of
the Hypersonic Air Breathing Weapons Concept.

Shape morphing aircraft structures development

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63211F Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstrations.
The committee notes ongoing research that supports the
design and manufacture of shape-morphing aircraft control
surfaces, including wings, winglets, inlets, and stabilizers
that have demonstrated reduced drag, increased fuel savings,
and decreased maintenance requirements for Air Force platforms.
The committee believes that research in this area will support
improving the performance of and reducing operational and life
cycle costs for air platforms.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for research in
shape morphing materials for active winglets.

Combat Search and Rescue advanced prototyping

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63211F Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration.
The committee supports the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force's request for additional funds for a high speed vertical
lift demonstration, such as Agility Prime, to prove the
employment of non-runway jet operations in a contested
environment, which could be crucial to the Air Force's ability
to develop a lethal, agile, and resilient force posture and
employment.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for the continued
development of Agility Prime.

Low Cost Attributable Aircraft Technology

The budget request included $102.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63211F Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration.
The committee supports the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics' intent to
accelerate the Air Force Research Laboratory's Low-Cost
Attributable Aircraft Technology (LCAAT) program for
collaborative pairing with manned platforms, potentially
including the F-35. The committee views the combined
application of commercial technology, autonomy, and artificial
intelligence as an innovative solution to meeting the demands
of the National Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63211F for the continued
development and transition of the LCAAT.

Aerospace propulsion and power technology

The budget request included $114.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63216F Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology.
The committee understands the importance of developing and
demonstrating core engine technologies for small turbines used
in current and future aircraft, missile, and remotely piloted
aircraft propulsion systems. The committee believes that
improved technologies in this area could reduce cost, improve
mission flexibility, and increase aircraft range.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $124.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force,
for PE 63216F.

Electronic combat technology

The budget request included $48.4 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63270F Electronic Combat Technology.
The committee notes that there is duplicative electronic
warfare and positioning, navigation, and timing research being
performed across the Department of Defense and encourages
increased coordination to reduce duplication of effort.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million, for a total of $38.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for
PE 63270F.

Advanced spacecraft technology

The budget request included $70.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63401F Advanced Spacecraft Technology.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
(DOD) relies extensively on weapons and communication systems
that must operate in environments with high levels of ambient
radiation. The committee notes a lack of commercially available
technologies that meet these requirements and also notes the
importance of DOD research on strategic radiation hardened
microelectronic processors.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million, for a total of $73.5 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for
PE 63401F for advanced research on radiation-tolerant systems.

Advanced materials and materials manufacturing

The budget request included $43.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63680F Manufacturing Technology Program.
The committee notes the importance of supporting
mitigations for industrial base vulnerabilities, including
those identified in the September 2018 Department of Defense
report titled ``Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing
and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the
United States'' and the August 2018 MITRE Corporation report
titled ``Deliver Uncompromised: A Strategy for Supply Chain
Security and Resilience in Response to the Changing Character
of War.'' The committee notes that strong partnerships between
academia and the aerospace industry can support original
equipment manufacturers with research and development in
advanced materials.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 63680F.

Battlespace knowledge and development demonstration

The budget request included $56.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
63788F Battlespace Knowledge Development and Demonstration.
The committee notes the importance of increased cyber
applied research and supports increasing cyber and command and
control research. The committee believes that long-term science
and technology cyber research is critical to developing
capabilities that will enable the warfighter to maintain
dominance in cyberspace in the long run.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $64.4 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for
PE 63788F for increased cyber applied research.

M-Code acceleration--advanced component development & prototypes

The budget request included $92.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64201F Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Resiliency,
Modifications, and Improvements.
The committee understands the importance of the ability of
the Global Positioning System (GPS) to provide resilient
position, navigation, and timing capability to the Joint Force
and acknowledges GPS Military-Code receiver development's
presence on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded
priorities list.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64201F for Embedded GPS/
Inertial Navigation System modernization.

Rapid repair and sustainability increase

The budget request included $128.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64858F Tech Transition Program.
The committee notes that advanced repair and qualification
processes can repair parts damaged, worn, or corroded in
service without introducing undesirable distortion. The
committee further notes that additional funds are needed to
establish a means to qualify repair components to increase
readiness by bringing systems back into service faster.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64858F for rapid repair and
sustainability.

Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent

The budget request included $570.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
65230F Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD).
The committee understands that the Air Force has chosen to
consolidate an existing program into a similar element of the
GBSD and that this approach will reduce risk and may save $850
million across the life of the programs.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $22.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65230F.

Light Attack experiment

The budget request included $35.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
27100F Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance Squadrons.
The committee supports the increase of combat capability
and readiness at a reduced cost and the development of advanced
capabilities for close air support, armed reconnaissance,
strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air
control, and interdiction. The committee also supports the
Department of Defense's intent to lower the cost of countering
violent extremism in accordance with the National Security
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned that the pace of
research and prototyping in this area has not kept pace with
the threat or the current capability available to the
Department.
Additionally, the committee is aware that, on a modern
battlefield, it is expected that friendly forces will be in
close proximity to the enemy and will require integrated joint
fires in order to achieve the effects demanded by the Joint
Force Commander. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense has been slow to develop and field capabilities to
provide battlefield situational awareness of enemy and friendly
actors. The committee is also aware of current technical
solutions that would provide the required identification of
friend and foe in environments, like that in which close air
support is demanded, in which the friendly forces are in close
proximity to the enemy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE27100F to conduct additional
RDT&E.

Cyber National Mission Force capabilities

The budget request included $198.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
36250F Cyber Operations Technology Development.
The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed
to counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted
in the National Defense Strategy. The committee supports
continued development of capabilities for the cyber warfighter
and understands the importance of improving the capabilities of
the Cyber Mission Force. The committee therefore supports the
request of U.S. Cyber Command to increase funding for the Cyber
National Mission Force Capability Acceleration Plan.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.6
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 36250F to accelerate the
development of Cyber National Mission Force capabilities.

ETERNALDARKNESS program development

The budget request included $198.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
36250F Cyber Operations Technology Development.
The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed
to counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted
in the National Defense Strategy. The committee supports
continued development of capabilities for the cyber warfighter
and understands the importance of improving the capabilities of
the Cyber Mission Force. The committee therefore supports the
request of U.S. Cyber Command to increase funding to develop
the ETERNALDARKNESS program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.1
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 36250F for the
ETERNALDARKNESS program.

Joint Common Access Platform

The budget request included $198.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
36250F Cyber Operations Technology Development.
The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed
to counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted
in the National Defense Strategy. The committee supports
continued development of capabilities for the cyber warfighter
and understands the importance of improving the capabilities of
the Cyber Mission Force. The committee therefore supports the
request of U.S. Cyber Command to increase funding to develop
the Joint Common Access Platform to be used by the Cyber
Mission Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.5
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 36250F for the Joint Common
Access Platform.

Protected Tactical Enterprise Service

The budget request included $105.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
1206760F Protected Tactical Enterprise Service (PTES).
The committee is concerned that the prototype development
of PTES, which constitutes $72.5 million of the overall
request, has experienced unjustified growth.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 1206760F.

Protected Tactical Service

The budget request included $173.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
1206761F Protected Tactical Service (PTS).
The committee is concerned that the rapid prototyping of
PTS, which constitutes $111.8 million of the overall request,
has experienced unjustified growth.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 1206761F.

ERWn

The budget request included $246.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64200F Aerospace Technology Development/Demonstration.
The committee acknowledges the importance of the mission of
the Extended Range Weapons program; however, the committee
understands that the Air Force is moving away from prototyping
to an ongoing analysis of alternatives to better understand
alternative technical solutions.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $149.1
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64200F.

M-Code acceleration--system development & demonstration

The budget request included $67.8 million in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64201F Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Resiliency,
Modifications, and Improvements.
The committee understands the importance of the ability of
the Global Positioning System (GPS) to provide resilient
position, navigation, and timing capability to the Joint Force
and acknowledges GPS Military-Code receiver development's
presence on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's unfunded
priorities list.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $81.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64201F for system
development and demonstration.

Space Fence

The budget request included no funding in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
1206426F Space Fence.
The committee understands that the Air Force is still
considering procurement of a second Space Fence site, which is
an option in the Department of Defense's Space Fence contract.
Given the knowledge gained during the development of the first
Space Fence site and the importance of developing an effective
space situational awareness capability, the committee
recommends that the Air Force evaluate construction of a second
Space Fence site.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 1206426F for the completion
of the second Space Fence design in order to fully understand
its associated costs.

Major T&E Investment

The budget request included $181.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64759F Major Test and Evaluation Investment.
The committee recognizes the important role that space test
infrastructure plays in initially testing and evaluating the
capability and resilience of Department of Defense space
systems in a contested environment. The committee also notes
the presence of foundational infrastructure elements used to
test both terrestrial and space-based assets on the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force's unfunded priorities list. The
committee believes that this infrastructure should support
testing of a comprehensive survey of systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in $36.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64759F for space test
infrastructure.

Utah test range instrumentation

The budget request included $181.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64759F Major Test and Evaluation Investment.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
indicated that the capability to conduct test and evaluation
over broad geographic areas must include net-centric and
distributed test capability. Modernized test facility data
systems must integrate modeling and simulation with operations,
training, and flight tests to achieve the required level of
complexity and realism.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in
RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64759F for enhancements of Utah test
range instrumentation for software-configurable test systems
that address current and future Department of Defense data
requirements.

Investment in hypersonic research and infrastructure

The budget request included $717.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
65807F Test and Evaluation Support.
The committee notes that the development of hypersonic
capabilities is a key element of the National Defense Strategy
and represents an area of intense technological competition
between the United States, People's Republic of China, and
Russian Federation. The committee remains concerned that more
attention needs to be focused on the expedient development and
maturation of key hypersonic flight technologies. In addition
to the need to improve ground-based test facilities such as
wind tunnels, the Department of Defense (DOD) also needs to
increase its flight test rate to expedite the maturation and
fielding of hypersonic technologies. The combination of ground-
based testing and flight testing is critical to fully maturing
the fundamental technologies needed to field a hypersonic
flight system. High-rate hypersonic flight test programs would
help mature six critical technology areas:
(1) Thermal protection systems and high temperature
flight structures;
(2) Seekers and sensors for hypersonic vehicles;
(3) Advanced navigation, guidance, and control;
(4) Communications and data links;
(5) High speed aerodynamic characterization; and
(6) Advanced avionics and vehicle communication
systems for hypersonic vehicles.
To address this concern, the committee believes that the
DOD must increase investment in research and test
infrastructure. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $5.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65807F for
the High-Speed Systems Test activity. Further, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional
defense committees, by June 1, 2020, on how the DOD plans to
improve its test infrastructure and increase its flight test
rate in fiscal year 2020 and beyond and the budget profile
necessary to implement this plan.

5G Military Operational Test Capability

The budget request included $717.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
65807F Test and Evaluation Support.
The committee notes the Defense Science Board's
recommendation to build a secure fifth generation (5G) wireless
network on a Department of Defense (DOD) installation. The
committee recognizes the revolutionary effect that 5G
technology will have on the Department but is concerned that
the DOD lacks the ability to test and develop tactics to
leverage 5G technology as well as to negate enemy use of this
advanced capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65807F for the
establishment of a 5G test network and associated
infrastructure at the Nevada Test and Training Range.

Advanced Battle Management System base architecture

The budget request included $35.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
64003F Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS).
The committee notes the potential of secure fifth
generation (5G) wireless networks for moving large amounts of
data with very low latency. The Defense Science Board
recommended building secure 5G wireless networks on a base in
order to understand the potential of these advanced networks.
The committee recognizes the revolutionary effect that 5G
technology will have on the Department of Defense and the
potential for use for data transfer for the ABMS. However, the
committee is concerned that the Department lacks the base
infrastructure to test, develop, and leverage 5G technology.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 64003F for the
establishment of a 5G base network that could be used for ABMS
at an Air Force installation in the continental U.S.

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System

The budget request included $40.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
65018F Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System.
The committee is concerned about poor agile implementation
and infrequent capability delivery.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.6
million, for a total of $0.0 million, in RDT&E, Air Force, for
PE 65018F.

HC-130 RDT&E

The budget request included $17.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
65278F HC/MC-130 Recapitalization RDT&E.
The committee supports the program and the modernization of
current aircraft to meet the requirements of the National
Defense Strategy. The committee understands that the program
requirements have changed and that the current request is above
need for this fiscal year.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $12.4
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 65278F.

Airborne Launch Control System Replacement

The budget request included $129.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
11213F Minuteman Squadrons, which includes the Airborne Launch
Control System-Replacement (ALCS-R) program.
The committee understands that the Air Force has chosen to
consolidate the ALCS-R program into the Ground-Based Strategic
Deterrent program and that this approach will reduce risk and
may save $850 million across the life of the programs. The
committee encourages the Air Force to ensure careful
sustainment of the existing ALCS systems before they are
replaced.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 11213F.

Advanced data transport flight test

The budget request included $0.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
31004F.
The committee supports the development of capabilities to
advance the ability of aircraft, sensors, and command and
control assets to share information. The committee also
understands that the development of this type of capability
requires live flight testing.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $21.0
million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 31004F to conduct live
flight testing of the concept and associated capabilities.

ISR automation

The budget request included $19.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force, for PE
35022F Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Modernization and Automation Development.
The committee supports the idea of modernizing the
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance enterprise and
the continued use of prototyping to reduce technological risk.
However, the committee is concerned with the fidelity of
the current plan. Therefore, the committee recommends a
decrease of $19.0 million in RDT&E, Air Force, for PE 35022F.

Defense Wide

Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

The budget request included $48.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
61110D8Z basic research initiatives.
The committee notes the importance of basic research in
meeting long-term national security needs and supports the
Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(DEPSCOR) efforts to expand the base of universities and states
that support defense research and innovation missions. The
committee notes that this program is attempting to engage
faculty and students from DEPSCOR state universities through
partnerships with defense research programs and defense
laboratories.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $58.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 61110D8Z for DEPSCOR.

Submarine industrial base workforce development

The budget request included $92.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
61120D8Z National Defense Education Program.
The committee notes the current shortfall in Columbia-class
technical workforce and supports increased submarine industrial
base workforce training and education to make up for this
shortfall.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $102.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 61120D8Z for submarine industrial base workforce
development.

Aerospace education and research

The budget request included $30.7 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
61228D8Z basic research at historically black colleges and
universities and minority institutions.
The committee notes the importance of fundamental
scientific knowledge and the pipeline of highly qualified
technical talent related to long-term national security needs.
The committee supports increased funding for aerospace
education and research activities at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions to promote the
expansion of the future aerospace technical workforce,
especially among U.S. citizens and to enhance research in areas
including fatigue damage tolerance, experimental aerodynamics,
and the performance of materials and components under extreme
environmental conditions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million, for a total of $32.7 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 61228D8Z for aerospace education and research.

Computer modeling of PFAS

The budget request included $62.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
62251D8Z applied research for the advancement of science and
technology priorities.
The committee notes the potential for advanced computer
modeling to improve the characterization and understanding of
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and supports an
increase in applied research in computational biology research
efforts to meet long-term national security needs in support of
the National Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 62251D8Z for government-
university-industry partnerships in computer modeling of PFAS.

Cyber Security Research

The budget request included $15.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
62668D8Z cyber security research.
The committee notes the importance of increased support for
academic cyber institutes in meeting long-term national
security needs in support of the National Defense Strategy. The
committee believes that long-term science and technology cyber
research is critical to developing capabilities that will
enable the warfighter to maintain dominance in cyberspace in
the long run.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million, for a total of $25.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 62668D8Z.

Artificial intelligence commercial solutions

The budget request included $29.4 million in Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, for PE
0603342D8Z Defense Innovation Unit (DIU).
The committee notes the importance of accelerating
Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications in support of the
Joint Artificial Intelligence Center's (JAIC) National Mission
Initiatives, including disaster response and predictive
maintenance. The committee supports the use of commercial
artificial intelligence (AI) solutions and urges the DIU to
coordinate with the JAIC to identify problem sets facing the
Department of Defense and to seek commercial AI solutions.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5
million for PE 0603342D8Z to accelerate AI commercial
solutions.

Joint capability technology demonstrations

The budget request included $107.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
63648D8Z joint capability technology demonstrations.
The committee supports a program reduction in joint
capability technology demonstrations due to a lack of
coordination of activities across the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $17.5
million, for a total of $89.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 63648D8Z.

Emerging capabilities technology development

The budget request included $80.9 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
63699D8Z emerging capabilities technology development.
The committee supports a program reduction in emerging
capability technology development due to concerns about
duplication of efforts across the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million, for a total of $70.9 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 63699D8Z.

SERDP increase

The budget request included $5.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $66.2 million was for PE 63716D8Z Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP).
The committee notes that both SERDP and the Environmental
Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) develop,
demonstrate, and validate the most promising innovative
technologies that can meet the Department's most urgent
requirements, provide a return on investment, and are executed
through free and open competitions. The committee directs the
Department to use the increases in SERDP to address the
following urgent concerns: (1) Help ensure the safety and
welfare of the servicemembers and their dependents by
eliminating or reducing the generation of pollution and use of
hazardous materials and reducing the cost of remedial actions
and compliance with environmental laws and regulations,
specifically as it relates to per- and polyfluoroakyl
substances; (2) Develop, demonstrate, validate, and field
fluorine-free firefighting foam; (3) Develop, demonstrate, and
validate long-term energy storage batteries tied to distributed
energy assets; and (4) Develop other technologies deemed
appropriate.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63716D8Z for SERDP.

Program increase to support National Defense Strategy technologies

The budget request included $175.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
63941D8Z test and evaluation science and technology.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
established the Test and Evaluation/Science and Technology
Program in recognition of the development of advanced
technology and transformational weapon systems, such as
directed energy weapons and hypersonics, without corresponding
advances in test technologies, such as means to measure
directed energy effects or security testing of cloud computing
environments. The committee further notes that in 2018 the
People's Republic of China announced the construction of a 265
meter long wind tunnel, which is to be complete by 2020, to
simulate the acceleration environment from Mach 10 to Mach 25.
China already has tunnels capable of simulating conditions
between Mach 5 to 9. In contrast, the committee notes that,
although the U.S. has hypersonic tunnels, most are small and
designed for tests lasting less than a few seconds.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in
RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63941D8Z to fund development of
test capabilities to support high-priority National Defense
Strategy technology development efforts.

ESTCP increase

The budget request included $5.2 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of
which $66.6 million was for PE 63851D8Z Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program (ESTCP).
The committee notes that both the Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP) and ESTCP develop,
demonstrate, and validate the most promising innovative
technologies that can meet the Department's most urgent
requirements, provide a return on investment, and are executed
through free and open competitions. The committee directs the
Department to use the increases in SERDP to address the
following urgent concerns: (1) Help ensure the safety and
welfare of the servicemembers and their dependents by
eliminating or reducing the generation of pollution and use of
hazardous materials and reducing the cost of remedial actions
and compliance with environmental laws and regulations,
specifically as it relates to per- and polyfluoroakyl
substances; (2) Develop, demonstrate, validate, and field
fluorine-free firefighting foam; (3) Develop, demonstrate, and
validate long-term energy storage batteries tied to distributed
energy assets; and (4) Develop other technologies deemed
appropriate.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 63716D8Z for SERDP.

MDA special programs

The budget request included $377.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
63891C Missile Defense Agency (MDA) special programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $125.0 million, for
a total of $502.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE
63891C.

Neutral particle beam

The budget request included $303.5 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, in PE
64115C for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Technology Maturation
Initiatives, of which $34.0 million was for a Neutral Particle
Beam program.
The committee notes that this program, intended for an on-
orbit demonstration within 5 years, would constitute a space-
based interceptor capability. The committee also notes that the
2019 Missile Defense Review (MDR) tasked the MDA with a study
of development and fielding of a space-based intercept
capability, to be delivered to the Under Secretaries of Defense
for Policy and Research and Engineering. According to the MDR,
this study will, along with another study directed by the
Deputy Secretary of Defense on boost-phase intercept
capability, inform considerations regarding a space-based
intercept layer for boost-phase defense. The committee believes
that proceeding with any single technology program is premature
before these studies are completed, the associated policy
decisions are made concerning the operation of such a
capability in space, and the relevant space-based sensor
architecture is finalized.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.0
million in PE 64115C, RDT&E, Defense-wide, Technology
Maturation Initiatives, for a total of $269.5 million.

Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System

The budget request contained $1.3 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
64250D8Z advanced innovative technologies of the Strategic
Capabilities Office (SCO), of which no funds were requested for
the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS).
The committee notes that this system may be a promising
pathway to provide more cost-effective point defense in theater
and encourages the SCO to continue to prove out the capability
in order to facilitate transition to one or more military
departments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $81.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 64250D8Z for HGWS.

Strategic Capabilities Office

The budget request included $1.3 billion in Research,
Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for
PE 64250D8Z Advanced Innovative Technologies.
The committee notes that the Strategic Capabilities Office
(SCO) was established to support rapid development,
prototyping, and deployment of operational capabilities to meet
emerging threats in the U.S. Indo-Pacific area of
responsibility. Since then, the SCO has drifted from its
original purpose and has seen significant budget growth not
commensurate with its transition success and has undertaken
projects with questionable technical merit and operational
utility. The committee recommends reductions in the following
projects, LiTE Saber, Quiet Riot, and StormSystem.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 64250D8Z.

Trusted and assured microeletronics

The budget request included $542.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
64294D8Z trusted and assured microelectronics.
The committee notes the importance of trusted and assured
microelectronics research for many applications, including
fifth-generation wireless networking microelectronics. The
committee believes that it is important to develop technologies
that could help in supply chain risk management.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million, for a total of $547.4 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 64294D8Z.

Rapid prototyping program

The budget request included $101.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
64331D8Z rapid prototyping program.
The committee notes that the Services and Defense Agencies
are aggressively investing in prototyping activities, through
programs using ``Section 804'' acquisition authorities, rapid
capability offices, and shifting science and technology
programs toward prototyping and away from innovation
activities. The committee further notes that the Rapid
Prototyping Fund, previously authorized by the Congress, is
also funding prototyping activities. Finally, the committee
notes that there is no central coordinating body in the
Department of Defense to oversee its many prototyping efforts
and ensure that they are focused on key issues, such as
informing requirements development and assessing the technical
feasibility of proposed technological approaches.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million, for a total of $51.0 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 64331D8Z.

Space Development Agency missile defense programs

The budget request included $85.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, in PE
1206410SDA, for Space Development Agency (SDA) Space Technology
Development and Prototyping, of which $15.0 million was for a
Space-Based Interceptor Study and $15.0 million was for a
Space-Based Discrimination Study.
The committee notes that the SDA was unable to provide
further details on these two efforts at the time of the budget
release. The committee further notes that elements of both
studies appear to be duplicative of ongoing efforts within the
Missile Defense Agency.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0
million in PE 1206410SDA, RDT&E, Defense-wide, Space Technology
Development and Prototyping, for a total of $55.0 million.

Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor

The budget request included $27.6 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
1206895C Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Space Programs
of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), of which no funding was
requested for a space-based sensor layer for missile defense
purposes.
The committee is deeply concerned about the growing threat
posed by hypersonic glide and cruise missiles, which challenge
existing sensor capabilities for both homeland and theater
missile defenses. Integral to any defense against this threat
is the ability to track low-flying or maneuverable missiles and
glide vehicles, a mission that can only be performed
effectively from space. The committee also notes that the
space-based sensor technology would be required before a space-
based intercept layer-which was included in the budget request-
could be deployed.
The committee notes that, after several years of consistent
testimony from senior Department of Defense officials regarding
the importance of space-based sensors for a missile defense
capability, the Congress has strongly supported MDA's space-
based sensor program. Both the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) and
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-245) increased funding for the Space
Sensor Layer program from $0.0 to $73.0 million.
Finally, the committee notes that this program, now called
the Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor, was
included in the unfunded requirements lists of the MDA Director
and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $108.0
million, for a total of $135.6 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 1206895C.

Joint Mission Environment Test Capability

The budget request included $83.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
65100D8Z Joint Mission Environment Test Capability.
The committee notes the importance of cyber range
development to meet future national security needs. The
committee believes that cyber test range capabilities will be
critical in training our warfighters to effectively counter the
threats posed by our adversaries as specified in the National
Defense Strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million, for a total of $89.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 65100D8Z.

Technical Studies, Support, and Analysis

The budget request included $18.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
65104D8Z for technical studies and analyses.
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in
RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 65104D8Z.

Systems engineering

The budget request included $37.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
65142D8Z systems engineering.
The committee supports a program reduction in systems
engineering due to the lack of coordination of efforts across
the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0
million, for a total of $32.1 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide,
for PE 65142D8Z for management support.

Defense Digital Service development support

The budget request included $1.0 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
66589D8W Defense Digital Service (DDS) Development Support.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Defense
Digital Service in helping the Department of Defense to build,
buy, and deploy technology and digital services.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 66589D8W for additional
development support activities.

Advanced manufacturing systems

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
67210D8Z Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Support.
The committee notes that the university research community
has contributed significantly to the development of new defense
capabilities, including in advanced manufacturing. The
committee believes that the U.S. academic research enterprise
should play a bigger role in promoting innovation in the
defense industrial base.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 67210D8Z for
interdisciplinary centers for research on advanced
manufacturing.

Composite manufacturing technologies

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
67210D8Z industrial base analysis and sustainment support.
The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of
Defense report titled ``Assessing and Strengthening the
Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain
Resiliency of the United States''' stressed the ``imperative
that producers and supply chains of materials deemed essential
to U.S. defense and civilian demand are robust, resilient,
competitive, and responsive to support current and long-term
economic security, current military operations, future wartime
mobilization, and unanticipated surge demand.''
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 67210D8Z to fund the
development of composite manufacturing technologies.

Printed circuit boards

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
67210D8Z industrial base analysis and sustainment support.
The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of
Defense report titled ``Assessing and Strengthening the
Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain
Resiliency of the United States''' stated, ``90% of worldwide
printed circuit board production is in Asia, over half of which
occurring in China; and the U.S. printed circuit board sub-
sector is aging, constricting, and failing to maintain the
state of the art for rigid and rigid-flex printed circuit board
production capability.''
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in RDT&E, Defense wide, for PE 67210D8Z to fund printed
circuit board manufacturing.

Rare earths materials research

The budget request included $10.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
67210D8Z industrial base analysis and sustainment support.
The committee notes the importance of supporting
mitigations for continuous and growing industrial base
shortfalls and vulnerabilities, including those identified in
the September 2018 Department of Defense report titled
``Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense
Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United
States.'' This report specifically recommended expanding direct
investment in the lower tier of the industrial base through the
Department's Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program
to address critical bottlenecks, support fragile suppliers, and
mitigate single points-of-failure. It further noted that
``China's domination of the rare earth element market
illustrates the potentially dangerous interaction between
Chinese economic aggression guided by its strategic industrial
policies and vulnerabilities and gaps in America's
manufacturing and defense industrial base.''
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.5
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 67210D8Z to fund
development of capability to produce rare earth elements from
coal ash.

Sharkseer transfer

The budget request included $289.1 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
33140G Information Systems Security Program.
The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency to the Defense
Information Systems Agency.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.9
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 33140G for the Sharkseer
program.

Sharkseer transfer

The budget request included $42.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
33140K Information Systems Security Program.
The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency to the Defense
Information Systems Agency.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9
million in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 33140K for the Sharkseer
program.

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency activities

The budget request included $2.4 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
0305128V Security and Investigative Activities.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in
RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE 0305128V for the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency to carry out a set of
activities relating to facilitating access by the Agency to
local criminal records historical data.

Future Vertical Lift

The budget request included $245.8 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for PE
1160403BB aviation systems, of which $1.2 million is for the
development and integration of special operations-unique
equities and requirements into a multi-service future vertical
lift (FVL) capability set 3 (CS3) aircraft.
The committee understands that U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) is working with the Army to identify specific
special operations-unique requirements early in the design
phase of the FVL CS3 in order to reduce duplication of design,
engineering, and post-production costs. The committee notes
that the SOCOM Program Executive Officer-Rotary Wing and the
Army Program Manager-FVL estimate that there could be
approximately $188 million in RDT&E savings resulting from this
co-development approach as compared to making post-production
modifications to the aircraft.
The committee also understands that the Army's decision to
accelerate FVL CS3 development has resulted in a shortfall in
SOCOM's related development efforts, an identified high
priority unfunded requirement for the command. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional $8.8 million in RDT&E,
Defense-wide, for PE 1160403BB, for the development and
integration of special operations-unique equities and
requirements into a multi-service FVL CS3 aircraft.

Next Generation Information Communications Technology (5G)

The budget request included no funding in Research,
Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, for
PE 64011D8Z Next Generation Information Communications
Technology.
The committee believes that fifth-generation wireless
networks and associated technologies will be a foundation for
future economic growth, will have an important nexus with
national security, and should be of high interest to the
Department of Defense. The committee is aware that, in future
wireless networks, the ability to use dynamic spectrum sharing
technologies will be critical to more efficient spectrum use.
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million, for
a total of $25.0 million, in RDT&E, Defense-wide, for PE
64011D8Z in support of a Department of Defense spectrum sharing
program.

Transfer from OCO to Base

The budget request included $102.6 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in base funding. The
committee notes that the President's budget request included
$97.9 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
account for activities that are traditionally funded out of
base accounts. The committee believes that OCO for Base funding
should be transferred into the base accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $748.0
million to RDT&E base funding.

Items of Special Interest

Acquisition roadmaps for certain Navy unmanned systems

The committee notes that the Navy's fiscal year 2020 future
years defense program (FYDP) includes a substantial increase in
funding for various unmanned systems, including unmanned
surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned underwater vessels (UUVs).
The committee further notes that Navy leaders envision some of
these systems' operating autonomously with the ability to
employ weapons.
While recognizing the need for prototypes to reduce
acquisition risk, the committee is concerned that the
acquisition strategies for the Large USV, Medium USV, Orca UUV,
and Snakehead UUV could lead to procurement of an excessive
number of systems before the Navy is able to determine if the
USVs and UUVs meet operational needs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not
later than November 1, 2019, that provides acquisition roadmaps
for the Large USV, Medium USV, Orca UUV, and Snakehead UUV.
Each roadmap shall: (1) Identify the applicable requirements
document (e.g., Top Level Requirements); (2) Describe the
threshold and objective values for each characteristic, key
performance parameter (KPP), or other measure in the applicable
requirements document; (3) Identify increments of vessels in
each program; (4) For each such increment, identify specific
entrance and exit criteria that build toward the specified
requirements (e.g., characteristic, KPP, or other measure),
including demonstrated hardware and software functionality; (5)
Identify the quantity of vessels needed in each increment to
perform the required testing or meet operational needs; (6)
Describe the concept of operations for each increment; (7)
Identify the key pieces of hardware and software needed for
each increment, including communications security material,
off-board line-of-sight and satellite communications, and
military datalinks; (8) Describe the extent to which each
increment of vessels will be equipped with weapons, enumerate
such weapons, and describe the associated target detect-to-
engage sequence of events for each such weapon; (9) Provide the
subsystem-level prototyping plan for each increment, including
for each such effort the planned cost, schedule, and
performance; and (10) Provide the acquisition plan for each
increment, including the planned cost, schedule, and
performance.

Advance power electronics

The committee supports the Navy's efforts in developing
advanced power electronics, including silicon carbide power
modules, which could reduce the size and weight of power
conversion modules and other electronic systems needed to power
advanced sensors and weapon systems. The committee recognizes
that available space and power density will continue to be a
concern when fielding naval systems on legacy Navy ships.
The committee encourages the Navy to continue its efforts
to develop silicon carbide power modules to support planned
deployment of high-power, mission critical systems on Navy
platforms.

Army Futures Command research budget realignments

The committee understands that the Army has reorganized
certain research offices, laboratories, and engineering centers
within the Combat Capability Development Command (CCDC), a
subordinate command of Army Futures Command. The committee is
aware that, as part of this reorganization, certain program
elements for basic research, applied research, and advanced
technology development were realigned from research,
development, and engineering centers to Army Futures Command
headquarters.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to enter
into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to
evaluate these changes and their impact on the Army's ability
to efficiently and effectively develop and deploy needed
capabilities and new technologies in the near, mid, and far
terms. The review should also include recommendations for
policy and organizational options that would better optimize
the Army research enterprise to support Army missions in the
near, mid, and far terms. The committee directs that this study
be delivered to the congressional defense committees no later
than February 1, 2021.

Artificial intelligence and sensor fusion for force protection

The committee acknowledges the success of ongoing rapid
fielding of commercially-available technologies that use
artificial intelligence and sensor fusion to deliver enhanced
force protection for Department of Defense (DOD) personnel and
installations. The committee notes that recent advances in
commercially available technology, including artificial
intelligence, computer vision, and sensor technology, have made
it possible to develop, manufacture, and deploy reconnaissance,
surveillance, and target acquisition technologies that are far
more effective, more efficient, and lower cost than legacy
systems. The committee is aware that artificial intelligence
can significantly improve situational awareness and security
for DOD personnel through faster and better processing and
exploitation of sensor data, recognition and classification of
potential threats, and dissemination of that information to
human operators for the purposes of enhanced self-defense.
The committee believes that artificial-intelligence- and
sensor-fusion-based technologies for personnel security and
base defense will reduce manpower and improve operators'
ability to detect, classify, and respond to threats.
Accordingly, the committee directs the DOD to review the
application of artificial intelligence that could improve the
safety of DOD personnel and installations and prioritize such
efforts as appropriate.

Artificial intelligence for Army air and missile defense

The committee supports the Army's efforts to conduct
operationally realistic assessments of Army Air and Missile
Defense (AMD) performance, identify system vulnerabilities, and
develop mitigations against threats across the cyber and
electromagnetic spectrum. The committee remains concerned about
any potential vulnerabilities in AMD weapon systems and
understands the importance of conducting periodic assessments
of these weapon systems. The committee is also aware that the
Army is developing tools, including modeling and simulation and
virtual models of critical hardware and software to allow for
testing in a lab environment. The committee encourages the Army
to look at methods for incorporating artificial intelligence
and machine learning into assessments of AMD weapon systems to
help identify and mitigate current and future threats.

Back-packable Communications Intelligence System

The committee is aware of expressed support by United
States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) for continued
development of the Back-packable Communications Intelligence
System (BPCS), an ultra-capable, low size, weight, and power,
high-frequency direction finding system currently managed by
the U.S. Army. The committee understands that BPCS performance
was demonstrated at the Special Operations Forces Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics (SOF AT&L) Technical Experiment 18-3
and encourages USASOC to continue working in close coordination
with SOF AT&L and the Army to advance BPCS development and
testing.

Battlefield situational awareness

The committee is aware that, on a modern battlefield, it is
expected that friendly forces will be in close proximity to the
enemy and will require integrated joint fires in order to
achieve the effects demanded by the Joint Force Commander. The
committee believes that the Department of Defense has been slow
to develop and field capabilities to provide battlefield
situational awareness of enemy and friendly forces. The
committee is also aware of current technical solutions that
could provide the required identification of friend and foe in
environments such as battlefield interdiction, close combat
attack, or close air support.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the service chiefs, to
provide a briefing, no later than March 30, 2020, on a
technical solution and an acquisition strategy that would
provide the Joint Force with continuous battlefield situational
awareness to identify friendly and enemy personnel in both
highly contested and permissive environments.

Briefing on detection of uncharted wires and obstacles to prevent
aviation incidents

Uncharted wires and obstacles pose a threat to rotary wing
and tiltrotor aircraft particularly in degraded visual
environments. This problem can be exacerbated for special
operations and combat search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft that
often operate in non-permissive conditions.
The committee understands that multiple systems that may
increase visibility for aircrews in order to avoid obstacles in
both low altitude flying and landing environments are currently
in development. However, the committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense has not taken demonstrable steps toward
fielding such technology. Furthermore, the development and
fielding of such a capability should be fully coordinated
across the Services to expeditiously field this technology to
aircrews.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the
Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the
United States Marine Corps, and the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command, to provide a briefing to the committee no
later than October 1, 2019, on efforts to identify, develop,
and procure capabilities for rotary wing and tiltrotor aircraft
to detect and avoid uncharted wires and obstacles. The briefing
shall include an evaluation of current commercially available
systems as well as an estimate of the funding required to, if
necessary, develop and acquire such a system for rotary wing
and tiltrotor aircraft.

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

The committee is aware of new advances in nanotechnology
being used in the commercial sector, particularly in the
aviation and energy industries, that reduce corrosion, improve
performance, and reduce costs. The committee is concerned that,
although the fundamental science was developed in part by the
Department of Defense, the Department has failed to even try
these new materials that could significantly reduce the
military's operating costs while improving readiness and
performance.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering to brief the committee,
no later than February 1, 2020, on the economic, performance,
and readiness impacts regarding the potential for testing and
applying these technologies in various operating assets, like
pipelines, heat exchangers, fuel storage tanks, water lines,
aircraft, and others deemed appropriate by the Department.

Department of Defense artificial intelligence investment inventory

The committee believes that it is important that the
Department of Defense (DOD) has accurate insight as to the
nature and extent of investments made in artificial
intelligence (AI). The committee is aware that one impediment
to such insight is that AI Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E) is spread throughout generally titled
program elements (PEs) and incorporated into funding for larger
systems with AI components or even extends beyond RDT&E into
Operation and Maintenance and Procurement.
The committee therefore directs the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller) to brief the congressional defense
committees by September 1, 2019, on the total array of AI
investments, to include PEs, line numbers, and funding amounts
with sufficient detail and description of those investments.
The committee also expects the Under Secretary to include the
methodology for tracking AI investments in future budget
requests. Further, the committee recommends that the Department
consider summarizing these AI investments in the annual
information technology budget exhibit.

Flame resistant military uniforms with multi-spectral sensor protection

The committee notes that infrared and multi-spectral sensor
detection is an emerging threat to members of the Armed Forces.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are under an ever
increasing threat of long-range detection by these sensors in
use by hostile near-peer as well as non-state actors. Given
recent technical developments in sensor technologies and sensor
mitigation, the committee feels that it is in the best interest
of the Services to explore multi-spectral sensor mitigation
technologies and to incorporate them into the current suite of
flame resistant (FR) uniforms presently in use by the Services.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
in coordination with the Secretaries of the Navy and the Air
Force, to conduct a feasibility study on incorporating these
mitigation technologies into FR uniforms and to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on this study
by December 1, 2019.

High powered microwave test range asset

The committee supports the transitioning of new and game-
changing directed energy technologies to the warfighter. An
enduring testing and evaluation capability for high powered
microwaves (HPM) would help the Services develop the doctrine
and concepts of operation that will bring these technologies to
operational use. Currently, an enduring frequency agile and
tunable HPM asset is not available at Major Range and Test
Facility Bases for evolving doctrine and HPM Directed Energy
Concept of Operations. The committee supports the Air Force's
development of such an asset at the Nation's test ranges.

Historically black colleges and universities support for minority women
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields

The committee acknowledges the ongoing efforts of the
Department of Defense (DOD) to increase the participation of
women and other underserved populations in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics-related (STEM) areas of research.
The committee urges the DOD to continue funding for center of
excellence efforts at historically black colleges and
universities (HBCUs) that support training and education of
minority women in STEM fields of interest to the military,
particularly through research funding, fellowships, and
internships and cooperative work experiences at defense
laboratories. The committee recommends that the Department of
Defense consider increasing investments in these kinds of
activities in future budgets to support administration
initiatives on HBCUs.

Hostile fire detection technology

The committee is aware of advancements in the development
of hostile fire detection technology and the importance of
these capabilities in providing deployed forces with the
ability to quickly detect, locate, and discriminate hostile
fire and related threats. The committee believes that efforts
to reduce the size, weight, power requirements, and cost for
hostile fire detection technologies could provide important
benefits to battlefield effectiveness and survivability of our
forces. The committee therefore directs the Commander of U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to provide to the committee
a briefing not later than October 1, 2019, on SOCOM's current
requirements for hostile fire detection and an assessment of
available technologies that may fulfill these requirements.

Human factors modeling and simulation

The committee notes that section 227 of the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) required the Secretary of Defense to develop and
provide for the execution of human factors modeling and
simulation activities with the purpose of accelerating research
and development that enhances capabilities for human
performance, human-systems integration, and training for the
warfighter.
The committee directs the Secretary to provide a briefing
on the status of this requirement and activities taken to
fulfill the requirement no later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act. The briefing shall include
information on the extent of the activities that are being
carried out, the effects of these activities with respect to
their purpose, activity participants, locations where
activities are being carried out, and the plan to sustain these
activities in the future.

Hypersonic development

The committee understands that developing hypersonic
technology is a high priority modernization effort for the
Department of Defense (DOD). The committee recognizes that, in
an effort to accelerate the development of hypersonics and to
coordinate simultaneous development efforts across the DOD, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering signed
a memorandum of agreement with the Services, with each
contributing to and collaborating on the land-, sea-, and air-
based prototyping of hypersonic technology.
The committee notes that, for over 30 years, Sandia
National Laboratories (SNL) has made significant contributions
to the prototyping and testing of hypersonic vehicles. SNL
houses experienced scientists and engineers in the development
of this technology, who utilize SNL's hypersonic wind tunnel
and advanced laser diagnostic technology. Over 7 years ago,
Sandia conducted a successful flight test of a hypersonic
concept for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.
This test provided SNL with significant additional data on
hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance
for long-range atmospheric flight with an emphasis on
aerodynamics, navigation, guidance and control, and thermal
protection technologies.
SNL is now integrating artificial intelligence into the
designing and planning stages, which may significantly expedite
the development and design process.
The committee believes that the technical expertise at SNL
and the laboratory has been and will continue to be
instrumental to the development and eventual production of
hypersonics. Therefore, the committee encourages the Department
to utilize the technical and scientific expertise at labs,
including SNL, necessary for the development of prototypes and
to assist commercial industry in manufacturing.

Importance and use of United States Active Ionospheric Research
Facilities

The committee recognizes the unique importance of U.S.
active ionospheric research facilities, also known as
``ionospheric heaters.'' These facilities transmit high
frequency (HF) radio waves and play a crucial role in the
research of ionospheric effects on national security systems.
The research possible at these facilities is useful to national
security in the realms of domain awareness, radar, atmospheric
effects on space systems, and over-the-horizon communications.
The committee recognizes that, while there are four ionospheric
research facilities in the world, two are in the United States,
including the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program
(HAARP) in Gakona, Alaska, and the HF heater at the Arecibo
Observatory (AO) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Both of these centers
are available to support scientific investigations and national
security programs for the Department of Defense, Department of
Energy, and the National Science Foundation.
The committee is aware that the HAARP has supported
investigations of ionospheric effects on high latitude
communications and navigation capabilities and the remediation
of high energy ``killer'' electrons in the magnetosphere as a
result of an extreme solar event or a high-altitude nuclear
detonation. The HAARP facility supports strategic applications
for over-the-horizon radar, global communication, and
diagnostics for satellite communication. The committee is aware
that the AO facility supports investigations of ionospheric
effects at mid- and- low latitudes with applications including
radio communications and radar detection. These experimental
sites provide insights and diagnostics for ionospheric effects
that are extremely challenging to obtain.
The committee encourages continued use of these facilities
and believes that these facilities can be used, when
appropriate, to support the national security space program.

Interdisciplinary expeditionary cybersecurity research

The committee is encouraged by current research efforts to
understand expeditionary cyber challenges. The committee
understands the challenge of operating within a complex and
evolving cyber and physical environment where warfighters are
in close proximity and contact with adversaries and believes
that this is simultaneously a growing threat and opportunity.
The committee believes that an interdisciplinary approach to
developing new capabilities for cyber systems while including
consideration of the role of human behavior in the tactical
cyber environment is critical. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to continue to conduct multidisciplinary
research in the areas of: dynamic cyber defense; tactical
cyberspace operations and signals intelligence; sensing; and
computation and communications.

Light attack experiment

The committee supports the increase of combat capability
and readiness at a reduced cost and the development of advanced
capabilities for close air support, armed reconnaissance,
strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air
control, and interdiction. The committee also supports the
Department of Defense's intent to lower the cost of countering
violent extremism in accordance with the National Security
Strategy. However, the committee is concerned that the pace of
research and prototyping in this area has not kept up with the
threat or the current capability available to the Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to deliver a briefing, no later than March 30, 2020, to
the congressional defense committees on the acceleration of the
light attack experiment using existing aircraft and any other
aircraft that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force deems
appropriate and capable of reaching initial operating
capability by 2023.

Multifunction capability to provide communications in contested
environments

The committee is concerned about the ability of the
Department of Defense to maintain its advantage in full
spectrum operations in the future. Recent conflicts have
highlighted our adversaries' increasing abilities to geolocate,
jam, and intercept electronic communications, putting at risk
the U.S. military's ability to communicate and conduct
effective command and control in contested environments.
To better prepare for future combat operations against a
near-peer adversary, the committee believes that the DOD needs
to expedite testing of multi-domain capabilities and systems
that provide distributed, shared, full spectrum situational
awareness and spectrum maneuver. This testing should include
cognitive machine learning or artificial intelligence
applications to assess new and unknown electronic signals in
real-time. Such testing would also demonstrate advanced
technologies, such as modern waveforms that are designed to be
low-probability-of-intercept, low-probability-of-detection, and
ultra-wideband radio frequency converged apertures that permit
the U.S. to maintain spectrum dominance. These systems should
also enable secure communications across networks with
different security levels and between both legacy and advanced
systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide the congressional defense committees with a
briefing, no later than March 1, 2020, on the plan for the
conduct of live testing of technologies and capabilities
designed to permit secure full spectrum operations in the
fiscal years 2020-2021 timeframe.

Navy laser integration plans

The committee is greatly encouraged by the Navy's rapid
demonstration of laser weapon systems on surface ships. In
2014, the Navy deployed a 30 kW Laser Weapon System (LaWS) on
USS Ponce, which will be followed by a 150 kW LaWS on USS
Portland (LPD-27), planned for 2019. The committee understands
that the improvements in power and beam quality make the 150 kW
LaWS nearly a 100-fold improvement in lethality.
The committee is also encouraged by the Navy's plans to
integrate the 60 kW High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-
dazzler with Surveillance (HELIOS) program into Arleigh Burke-
class destroyers beginning in 2021.
If the HELIOS effort succeeds, the committee believes there
may be additional opportunities to integrate High Energy Laser
(HEL) systems on large capital ships, including aircraft
carriers and large amphibious ships, to increase the defensive
capabilities and lethality of our carrier strike groups and
expeditionary forces.
If the Navy has continued positive results at increased
radiated power, there may also be broader applications of laser
weapons for providing capability for fleet air defense from
more Navy vessels.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee,
not later than October 1, 2019, describing the path forward for
shipboard integration of HEL systems and the risk reduction
plan to achieve improved technology and manufacturing readiness
levels for such higher power systems. The committee also
directs the Secretary to provide briefings on the progress of
laser systems development and testing every 6 months through
fiscal year 2021.

Production-ready sources for hypersonic materials

Hypersonic systems require high performance, heat resistant
materials to survive demanding flight regimes. For mission
critical structures such as radomes and apertures, currently
available materials and manufacturing infrastructure cannot
meet anticipated requirements for hypersonic systems. The
committee notes that the September 2018 Report of the
Interagency Task Force in fulfillment of Executive Order 13806
recommends that the Department of Defense expand direct
investment in the lower tier of the industrial base through
Title III of the Defense Production Act (Public Law 81-774),
Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology, and Industrial
Base Analysis and Sustainment programs to address critical
bottlenecks, support fragile suppliers, and mitigate single
points-of-failure. The committee strongly agrees with this
recommendation and directs the Department to use the respective
authorities and funding within these programs to accelerate
material qualification and establishment of production ready
sources for critical materials and components to support
hypersonic systems.

Requirement for briefing on Advanced Battle Management System
acquisition strategy

The committee is concerned with the progress of the
Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). The Air Force has
taken a significant amount of time to hire what they refer to
as an architect to analyze the problem and produce a solution
that would be fielded at Robins Air Force Base. The committee
understands that the problem is currently well-defined to
include potential sensor and communication requirements for a
disaggregated solution to battle management. However, the
committee remains concerned that the ABMS comprises a number of
programs and, as a result, may cross multiple program elements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to biannually provide briefings to the congressional
defense committees on the progress of the ABMS acquisition. The
first briefing shall be provided no later than January 1, 2020,
and the subsequent briefings shall be provided once every 6
months until system is fielded.
These briefings shall include: (1) the ABMS acquisition
strategy; (2) Progress made in meeting that strategy; (3) An
unclassified plan that lays out a personnel transition strategy
in order to develop the initial cadre for the ABMS from the
current workforce, including active duty, Reserve, Air National
Guard, and civilians, at Robins Air Force Base; and (4) The
plan to fill the capability gap that could emerge post-JSTARS
and pre-ABMS.

Use of commercial cloud services to support high performance computing
needs

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has many needs for high performance computing systems to
support weapons design and testing, weather forecasting,
scientific research, data analysis, and other missions. The
committee further notes that commercial cloud computing
services may provide a novel, efficient, and lower cost method
for obtaining high performance computing capabilities. The
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering (USD(R&E)) and the Chief Information Officer
(CIO) to jointly develop a report analyzing the potential use
of cloud computing capabilities, including commercial services,
to help support the high performance computing needs of the
DOD. The committee directs that the report be delivered to the
congressional defense committees no later than January 1, 2021.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at
the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this
Act.

Subtitle B--Energy and Environment

Use of operational energy cost savings of Department of Defense (sec.
311)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2912 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
operational energy cost savings realized by the Department of
Defense be used for the implementation of additional
operational energy cost saving methods.
Use of proceeds from sales of electrical energy generated from
geothermal resources (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2916(b) of title 10, United States Code, to provide the
Department of Defense more flexibility when using geothermal
revenue.
Energy resilience programs and activities (sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical corrections to the Annual Energy Management and
Resilience Report, would require a report on funding levels for
certain energy program offices, and would establish targets for
reduction in water use.
Native American Indian lands environmental mitigation program (sec.
314)
The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense (DOD), that would amend chapter 160 of
title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense
to establish a program to mitigate the environmental impacts of
DOD activities on Native American Indian lands.
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain costs in
connection with the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
Minnesota (sec. 315)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental Protection
Agency for remedial actions performed at the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant (TCAAP). The committee understands that this
authority will be used to satisfy the interagency agreement for
the TCAPP.
Prohibition on use of perfluoroalkyl substances and polyfluoroalkyl
substances for land-based applications of firefighting foam
(sec. 316)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from procuring firefighting foam that
contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances after
October 1, 2022.
Transfer authority for funding of study and assessment on health
implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
contamination in drinking water by Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (sec. 317)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 316(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) to extend the authority of
the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services for the study and assessment of the
health implications of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
Cooperative agreements with States to address contamination by
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (sec. 318)
The committee recommends a provision that would encourage
the Secretary of Defense to work expeditiously to finalize a
cooperative agreement upon request from the governor of a State
if there is suspected contamination from perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances. If an agreement is not finalized or
amended within 1 year, the Secretary of Defense is required to
submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees.

Modification of Department of Defense environmental restoration
authorities to include Federal Government facilities used by
National Guard (sec. 319)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
environmental restoration accounts for the Army National Guard
and the Air National Guard.

Budgeting of Department of Defense relating to extreme weather (sec.
320)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to include a dedicated budget line item
for adaptation to and mitigation of effects of extreme weather
on military networks, systems, installations, facilities, and
other assets and capabilities of the Department of Defense in
the annual budget submission of the President.

Pilot program for availability of working-capital funds for increased
combat capability through energy optimization (sec. 321)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense and the military departments to use the
working capital fund established pursuant to section 2208 of
title 10, United States Code, to conduct a pilot program for
energy optimization initiatives. Further, this provision would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to
the congressional defense committees on the use of the
authority during the preceding fiscal year. The annual report
would be required to be submitted not later than 60 days after
the President's budget is submitted to the Congress.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to
submit a report on efforts to achieve cost savings at military
installations with high energy intensity to the congressional
defense committees not later than September 1, 2020.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would provide
technical corrections to title 10, United States Code.

Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment

Requirement for memoranda of understanding between the Air Force and
the Navy regarding depot maintenance (sec. 331)

The committee recommends a provision that would require a
joint memorandum of understanding in such cases where one
military service would provide depot maintenance for an air
platform of another military service. The memorandum would
address the requirements and oversight responsibilities for
administration, supply, and maintenance and would be executed
by officials of both services in a grade of O-7 or higher with
responsibilities for administration, supply, and maintenance.
The committee wants to ensure that the different
maintenance practices required by the Navy and the Air Force
are well-understood by both services.

Modification to limitation on length of overseas forward deployment of
naval vessels (sec. 332)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 323 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232)
relating to the limitation on length of overseas forward
deployment of naval vessels.

Subtitle D--Reports

Report on modernization of Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (sec.
341)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the long-term modernization of
the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to deliver a comprehensive strategy to the
congressional defense committees, no later than October 1,
2020, for improving the depot infrastructure of the military
departments with the objective of ensuring that the depots have
the capacity and capability to support the readiness and
material availability goals of current and future weapon
systems of the Department of Defense. The provision would
require that the strategy include a review of the current
conditions and performance of each depot, a business-case
analysis comparing the minimum investment necessary required
under section 2476 of title 10, United States Code, with the
actual investment needed to execute the planned mission and a
plan to improve the conditions and performance utilizing this
data.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to review and submit to the congressional
defense committees, no later than January 1, 2021, a report on
the extent to which the submitted strategy meets the
requirements set forth.
The committee notes that, although section 2476e of title
10, United States Code, established minimum investment
requirements for the military departments' depots, the
committee is aware that recent reporting by the Comptroller
General indicates that the condition of depot facilities is
poor and the age of depot equipment is often past its expected
useful life. The intent of section 2476e was to require a
minimum level of investment to ensure that the military depots
would receive adequate investment in facilities, equipment, and
processes. The committee is concerned, however, that this
requirement may not be adequate to maintain the organic
industrial base infrastructure over its useful life.

Limitation on use of funds regarding the basing of KC-46A aircraft
outside the continental United States (sec. 352)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit Air
Force funds until the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the
Congress a report on the projected plan and timeline for
strategic basing of the KC-46A aircraft outside the continental
United States.

Prevention of encroachment on military training routes and military
operations areas (sec. 353)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
projects to file 1 year before construction if they are
proposed within wide area surveillance over-the-horizon radar.
Additionally, the provision allows the governor of a State to
recommend geographical areas of concern to the Secretary of
Defense.

Expansion and enhancement of authorities on transfer and adoption of
military animals (sec. 354)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to require
veterinary screening and care for military working dogs prior
to retirement or transfer to law enforcement agencies. The
provision would also, as requested by the Department of
Defense, extend transfer and adoption authorities to
Department-owned mules and donkeys, in order to provide
consistency for use of the word ``transfer'' throughout this
section of law.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from entering into or awarding any
contract for the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3) any
sooner than 60 days after the Comptroller General of the United
States delivers a report to Congress, previously directed, on
DP3. The provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to
review and evaluate any solicited or unsolicited proposal
intended to improve DP3.
The committee notes the concerns and frustration of
servicemembers across the Department of Defense with the
delivery of services under the current DP3 structure. The
committee understands that U.S. Transportation Command
(TRANSCOM) has efforts underway to improve servicemember
experiences for the 2019 and 2020 peak moving seasons and
develop a long-term solution for managing the DP3 system
through a single contractor. While the committee is encouraged
by TRANSCOM's desire to improve the program's delivery of
services to servicemembers, the committee believes that both
TRANSCOM and the Congress need additional information before
making a determination on the best path forward.

Prohibition on subjective upgrades by commanders of unit ratings in
monthly readiness reporting on military units (sec. 356)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the commander of a military unit who is responsible for monthly
reporting of readiness from making any subjective upgrade of
the overall rating of the unit. The provision would also
include a waiver authority if the first flag or general officer
above the reporting unit in the chain of command approves of
the upgrade. Finally, the provision would require that any such
waiver, and subsequent upgrades, be included in the Quarterly
Readiness Report to Congress.
The committee notes that too often certain military
services have abused the flexible authority of subjective
upgrades, with the Department of Defense and the Congress
lacking a truly accurate portrayal of unit readiness as a
result.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 345(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91; 10 U.S.C. 2667 note) by
striking ``September 30, 2020'' and inserting ``September 30,
2025.''
The committee notes that the permissive authority that
would be extended under this provision allows to the Secretary
of the Army to authorize leases and contracts for up to 25
years under section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, if
the Secretary determines that a lease or contract will promote
the national defense by maintaining the viability of an
arsenal, depot, plant, or military installation on which such
facility is located. The committee further notes that any lease
is subject to a 90-day hold period for the purposes of review
by the Army real property manager.

Clarification of food ingredient requirements for food or beverages
provided by the Department of Defense (sec. 358)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to publish a notice of proposed action
before making any final rule, statement, or determination on
the limitation or prohibition of a food or beverage ingredient
provided by the Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) are engaging with private
industry regarding decisions made that impact food supply
chains. In order to assess the impact of these decisions on
farms, vendors, suppliers, and supply chain activities, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to evaluate the current DOD/DLA joint subsistence policy board,
DOD menu standards, and DLA's process map designed to ensure
industry engagement. The committee further directs the
Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the committee on
the preliminary observations of this review, not later than
February 1, 2020, and to submit a report on a date agreed to at
the time of the briefing.

Technical correction to deadline for transition to Defense Readiness
Reporting System Strategic (sec. 359)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 358(c) of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) by
striking ``October 1, 2019'' and replacing it with ``October 1,
2020.''
The committee notes that the original provision required
the Services to complete a transition to the Defense Readiness
Reporting System Strategic no later than October 1, 2019. The
technical correction to October 1, 2020 adjusts the deadline to
conform with the report language and original intent.

Budget Items

Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region

The budget request included $417.1 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), for SAG 122 Land Forces System
Readiness.
The committee recommends an increase of $29.2 million in
OMA for SAG 122 in support of exercises and experimentation,
wargaming, concept development, and other activities associated
with the Multi-Domain Task Force for the Indo-Pacific region.
This increase would support essential capabilities for Multi-
Domain Operations-Pacific as described in the Chief of Staff of
the Army's unfunded priorities list.
The committee supports the efforts of the Army and U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command to develop capabilities and operational
concepts to maintain or restore the comparative military
advantage of the United States in the Indo-Pacific region and
to reduce the risk of executing contingency plans of the
Department of Defense. As it develops, the Multi-Domain Task
Force will have significant implications for force posture,
force structure, and procurement priorities. Going forward, the
committee urges the Department of the Army and U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command to keep the committee fully apprised of
developments relating to activities associated with the Multi-
Domain Task Force.

Army Base Operations Support under execution

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $0.0 million was for SAG 131
Base Operations Support. The committee notes that the budget
request included a transfer of $8.0 billion from base to
overseas contingency operations for SAG 131 Base Operations
Support.
The committee notes according to analysis conducted by the
Government Accountability Office, Base Operations Support has
historically under executed.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $46.0
million in OMA to SAG 131 Base Operations Support.

Army savings from revised housing cost share

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $0.0 million was for SAG 131
Base Operations Support. The committee notes that the budget
request included a transfer of $8.0 billion from base to
overseas contingency operations for SAG 131 Base Operations
Support.
The committee notes that this Act contains a provision that
would amend the 5 percent cost share requirement for the
Services to 2 percent with the additional 3 percent left to the
discretion of the Secretary of the relevant military department
on a project by project basis.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.4
million in OMA for SAG 131 Base Operations Support.

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

The budget request included $146.4 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), for SAG 142 US European Command.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million in OMA
for SAG 142 to support life-cycle replacement of command,
control, communication, computer, and intelligence systems and
infrastructure at the Joint Intelligence Operations Center
Europe Analytic Center at RAF Molesworth, United Kingdom.

Army advertising and recruiting budget decrease

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $716.1 million was for SAG
331 Recruiting and Advertising.
The committee notes that the Army requested $73.2 million
in addition to its baseline advertising budget of $256.5
million and $36.9 million in addition to its baseline
recruiting budget of $349.9 million. The committee further
notes that the request represents a 28.5 percent increase to
advertising and a 10.5 percent increase to recruiting. When
compared to its end strength increases over the future years
defense program, the committee believes that this request is
ahead of need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $80.0
million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising. The
committee notes that the specific decreases recommended are
$70.0 million for advertising and $10.0 for recruiting.

Army Other Personnel Support under execution

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $391.9 million was for SAG
434 Other Personnel Support.
The committee notes according to analysis conducted by the
Government Accountability Office, Other Personnel Support has
historically under executed.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $28.0
million in OMA to SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.

Army Claims Activities under execution

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $198.8 million was for SAG
436 Army Claims Activities.
The committee notes according to analysis conducted by the
Government Accountability Office, Army Claims Activities has
historically under executed.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0
million in OMA to SAG 436 Army Claims Activities.

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities--Army

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA).
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a
provision that would allow the Secretaries of the military
departments to use money authorized for appropriation for
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop
cyber operations-peculiar capabilities. The provision would
allow the Department of Defense to use its O&M funds for the
rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber
capabilities that would be developed and used within the 1-year
appropriation period.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
increase of $3.0 million in OMA for cyber operations-peculiar
capabilities.

Family housing pilot program

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA).
The committee notes that in title XXX in this Act, the
committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot program to build and
monitor the use of not fewer than five single family homes for
members of the Army and their families.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
increase of $1.0 million to OMA for the single family home
pilot program.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Army sustainment

The budget request included $22.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which no funds were for Terminal
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) sustainment.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its
views regarding the transition of the THAAD program from the
Missile Defense Agency to the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends an undistributed
increase of $99.8 million in OMA for THAAD sustainment.

Army National Guard facilities sustainment disaster recovery increase

The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $1.1
billion was for SAG 132 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration &
Modernization.
The committee notes that the Army National Guard has
increasing facilities sustainment costs due to the catastrophic
flooding in Nebraska impacting Camp Ashland and other guard
equities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.2
million in OMARNG for SAG 132 Facilities Sustainment,
Restoration & Modernization for disaster recovery.

Army National Guard recruiting and advertising decrease

The budget request included $3.3 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $250.4
million was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.
The committee notes that the Army National Guard requested
$3.5 million in addition to its baseline marketing budget of
$77.5 million and $3.5 million in addition to its baseline
recruiting budget of $7.9 million. The committee further notes
that the request represents a 4.5 percent increase to marketing
and a 44.3 percent increase to recruiting. When compared to its
end strength increases over the future years defense program,
the committee believes that this request is ahead of need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0
million in OMARNG for SAG 434. The committee notes that the
specific decreases recommended are $1.5 million for marketing
and $1.5 million for recruiting.

Navy depot maintenance unfunded requirement increase

The budget request included $53.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $0.0 billion was for SAG 1B4B
Ship Depot Maintenance. The committee notes that the budget
request included a transfer of $8.0 billion from base to
overseas contingency operations for SAG 1B4B Ship Depot
Maintenance.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations'
unfunded priority list included depot maintenance that directly
impacts readiness through both submarine and ship maintenance.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $814.0
million in OMN for SAG 1B4B to improve both submarine and ship
maintenance.

Posture site assessments in the Indo-Pacific region

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $94.0 million was for SAG
1CCM Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support.
The committee notes the National Defense Strategy's
emphasis on evolving United States force posture to meet the
challenges of strategic competition. In particular, the
National Defense Strategy prioritizes forward force maneuver,
posture resilience, and resilient and agile logistics. The
committee is concerned with the insufficient pace of the
transition from large, centralized, and unhardened
infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, resilient, and adaptive
basing in the Indo-Pacific region. Accelerating this transition
and reducing the risk of executing Department of Defense
contingency plans will require support site assessments,
planning and design, and follow-on military construction
investments.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in OMN for SAG 1CCM to support the conduct of posture
site assessments in the Indo-Pacific region.

Navy housing cost share

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $0.0 billion was for SAG BSS1
Base Operating Support. The committee notes that the budget
request included a transfer of $4.4 billion from base to
overseas contingency operations for SAG BSS1 Base Operating
Support.
The committee notes that this Act contains a provision that
would amend the 5 percent cost share requirement for the
Services to 2 percent with the additional 3 percent left to the
discretion of the Secretary of the relevant military department
on a project by project basis. The committee further notes that
the Navy did not request this funding in its base request and
instead treated this cost share mandate as an unfunded
requirement.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $18.8
million in OMN for SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support.

Navy advertising reduction

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $209.3 million was for SAG
3C1L Recruiting and Advertising.
The committee notes that the Navy requested $27.9 million
in addition to its baseline advertising budget of $183.4
million. The committee further notes that the request
represents a 15.2 percent increase to advertising. When
compared to its end strength increases over the future years
defense program, the committee believes that this request is
ahead of need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.0
million in OMN for SAG 3C1L Recruiting and Advertising.

Navy administration decrease

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 4A1M
Administration.
The committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million in OMN
for SAG 4A1M.

Navy audit reduction

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 4A1M
Administration.
The committee notes that within this request was an
increase of $158.4 million for audit efforts, which has a
baseline of $370.9 million. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense has reported to the committee that the
Navy is ranked last among 27 organizations within the DOD for
progress in achieving a clean audit. While the committee notes
the importance of the audit to making the Department of Defense
more efficient, the committee believes that this increase is
unjustified.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million in OMN for SAG 4A1M for Navy audit efforts.

Resilient Energy Program Office

The budget request included $25.9 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $485.3 million was for
SAG 4B2N Planning, Engineering, and Program Support.
The committee continues to strongly support the Navy's
Resilient Energy Program Office (REPO), which has successfully
executed over 49 energy resilience projects leveraging non-
Department of Defense funding in Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina,
Arizona, Nevada, California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington, Hawaii, Italy, and
Japan. However, the committee understands that some fiscal year
2020 projects are at risk due to lack of funding in Texas,
North Carolina, and several other states.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in OMN for SAG 4B2N for the REPO office to ensure that
all fiscal year 2020 projects are executed.

Cyber operations-peculiar capabilities--Navy

The budget request included $25.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN).
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a
provision that would allow the Secretaries of the military
departments to use money authorized for appropriation for
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop
cyber operations--peculiar capabilities. The provision would
allow the Department of Defense to use its O&M funds for the
rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber
capabilities that would be developed and used within the 1-year
appropriation period.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
increase of $3.0 million in OMN for cyber operations--peculiar
capabilities.

Cyber operations--peculiar capabilities--Marine Corps

The budget request included $3.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC).
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a
provision that would allow the Secretaries of the military
departments to use money authorized for appropriation for
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop
cyber operations--peculiar capabilities. The provision would
allow the Department of Defense to use its O&M funds for the
rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber
capabilities that would be developed and used within the 1-year
appropriation period.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
increase of $3.0 million in OMMC for cyber operations--peculiar
capabilities.

Air Force savings from revised housing cost share

The budget request included $21.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $0.0 million was for
SAG 011Z Base Support. The committee notes that the budget
request included a transfer of $7.2 billion from base to
overseas contingency operations for SAG 011Z Base Support.
The committee notes that this Act contains a provision that
would amend the 5 percent cost share requirement for the
Services to 2 percent with the additional 3 percent left to the
discretion of the Secretary of the relevant military department
on a project by project basis.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.4
million in OMAF for SAG 011Z Base Support.

US CYBERCOM

The budget request included $323.1 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), for SAG 015E US CYBERCOM.
The committee is aware of the growing capabilities needed
to counter adversaries in the cyberspace domain as highlighted
in the National Defense Strategy. The committee recognizes the
need to improve the capabilities of Cyber National Mission
Force and therefore supports the request of U.S. Cyber Command
(CYBERCOM) to re-align certain funds to support the Cyber
National Mission Force Capability Acceleration Plan. The
committee also supports CYBERCOM's request to increase funding
for the Cyber National Mission Force Mobile and Modular Hunt
Forward Kit and the ETERNALDARKNESS program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5
million to accelerate the development of Cyber National Mission
Force capabilities, an increase of $5.3 million for the Cyber
National Mission Force Mobile and Modular Hunt Forward Kit, and
an increase of $18.0 million for ETERNALDARKNESS in OMAF for
SAG 015E.

Air Force advertising reduction

The budget request included $21.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $167.7 million was for
SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising.
The committee notes that the Air Force requested $9.1
million in addition to its baseline advertising budget of $96.7
million. The committee further notes that the request
represents a 9.4 percent increase to advertising. When compared
to its end strength increases over the future years defense
program, the committee believes that this request is ahead of
need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of
$6.0 million for SAG 033A for Recruiting and Advertising.

Cyber operations--peculiar capabilities--Air Force

The budget request included $21.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF).
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommended a
provision that would allow the Secretaries of the military
departments to use money authorized for appropriation for
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) up to $3.0 million to develop
cyber operations--peculiar capabilities. The provision would
allow the Department of Defense to use its O&M funds for the
rapid creation, testing, fielding, and operation of cyber
capabilities that would be developed and used within the 1-year
appropriation period.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
increase of $3.0 million in OMAF for cyber operations--peculiar
capabilities.

Innovative Readiness Training increase

The budget request included $37.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $165.7 million was
for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs.
The committee notes that $15.7 million of the request for
Civil Military Programs was for Innovative Readiness Training
(IRT). The committee is aware that the Armed Forces continue to
face readiness challenges due to budgetary constraints. The
committee continues to recognize the value of IRT, which
affords to the Armed Forces the most realistic joint training
opportunities for National Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty
members.
The committee understands that IRT offers complex and
challenging training opportunities for domestic and
international crises. The committee is also aware that Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wyoming all use IRT.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $14.3
million in OMDW for SAG 4GT3 for IRT.

STARBASE program

The budget request included $34.7 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $165.7 million was
for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs.
The committee notes that the Science and Technology
Academies Reinforcing Basic Aviation and Space Exploration
(STARBASE) program is a highly effective program that improves
the knowledge and skills of students in kindergarten through
12th grade in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$15.0 million for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs for the
STARBASE program.

Defense Information Systems Agency MilCloud

The budget request included $2.0 billion in OMA for SAG
4GT9 Defense Information Systems Agency.
The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for
SAG 4GT9 for MilCloud.

Sharkseer transfer

The budget request included $601.2 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide(OMDW), SAG 4GU9 Defense Information
Systems Agency--Cyber.
The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency to the Defense
Information Systems Agency.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $35.1
million in OMDW, SAG 4GU9 for the Sharkseer program.

Assessment, monitoring, and evaluation

The budget request includes $697.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTD Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, of which $9.1 million is for assessment,
monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E).
The committee notes that section 383 of title 10, United
States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense to maintain an
AM&E program of the security cooperation programs and
activities of the Department of Defense (DOD). This requirement
was included as an integral component of the security
cooperation reforms contained in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to
ensure that the DOD allocates sufficient emphasis and
resourcing to developing and implementing an AM&E program that
is rigorous and comprehensive, that provides for the continuous
review of security cooperation programs from inception to
completion, and that measures outcomes against clearly defined
objectives. DOD's progress to date in developing the
organizational capacity and expertise to conduct AM&E across
the security cooperation enterprise is wholly inadequate. The
committee notes that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's
fiscal year 2020 base and overseas contingency operations
budget request for its security cooperation account, the Indo-
Pacific Maritime Security Initiative, and the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative--all programs largely focused on
providing equipment and training to tactical and operational-
level forces of foreign partners--is approximately $1.6 billion
while its budget request for AM&E is $9.1 million.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTD for AM&E.

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

The budget request included $697.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTD Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, of which $397.0 million is for the security
cooperation account.
The committee notes that the reforms to the Department of
Defense's (DOD) security cooperation enterprise required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) sought to rationalize and streamline the
authorities and associated funding available for security
cooperation and enhance the effectiveness of DOD planning,
execution, and oversight. Additionally, that law emphasized the
critical importance of non-materiel solutions to the
effectiveness of DOD security cooperation efforts, namely
through an increased emphasis on building the institutional
capacity of foreign partners to more competently manage and
sustain their own forces and the equipment and related
assistance provided by the United States. The reforms also
highlighted the need to mature the DOD security cooperation
workforce and the development and implementation of a rigorous
assessment, monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E) program to ensure
that DOD programs are appropriately scoped and meeting clearly
defined objectives.
However, while funding for DSCA's security cooperation
account--which is primarily used to provide equipment and
training to foreign partners to build capacity at the tactical
and operational levels--has grown from approximately $895
million in fiscal year 2018 for base and OCO to the $1.2
billion requested for fiscal year 2020 for base and OCO, the
DOD continues to insufficiently prioritize and resource
congressionally-mandated efforts relating to DOD security
cooperation workforce development, AM&E, and institutional
capacity building. The committee believes that this imbalance
inhibits appropriate security cooperation program design,
execution, and oversight, which could lead to suboptimal
outcomes and wasted taxpayer dollars.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTD for the security cooperation
account.

Consolidated adjudication facility

The budget requested included $889.7 million in Operations
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTE Defense
Security Service.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency, for a total of $899.7
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTE Defense Security Service.

Impact aid

The budget request included $45.8 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $2.9 billion was for
SAG 4GTJ Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount
authorized to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following
changes from the budget request. The provisions underlying
these changes in funding levels are discussed in greater detail
in title V of this committee report.

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Impact aid for schools with military dependent +40.0
students.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities...... +10.0
Total............................................. +50.0

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency sustainment

The budget request included $37.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $522.5 million was
for SAG011A Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
Elsewhere in this report, the committee has stated its
views regarding the transition of the Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense program from the MDA to the Department of the
Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $99.8
million in OMDW for SAG011A MDA.

Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense, of which no funds were proposed for Bien
Hoa dioxin cleanup in Vietnam.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nation-wide human health
assessment

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense, of which no funds were proposed for the
ongoing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Nation-wide human health assessment related to contaminated
sources of drinking water from per- and poly-fluoroalkyl
substances.
The committee continues to strongly support the ongoing
human health assessment. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an increase of $10.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the
ongoing CDC assessment.

Department of Defense Emerging Contaminants increase

The budget request included $1.6 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of
the Secretary of Defense, of which no funds were for the
Department of Defense (DOD) Emerging Contaminants.
The committee continues to support the mission of the
office to study, analyze and evaluate threats to warfighters
and their families. However, the committee is also concerned
that the DOD has not allocated enough resources to the office
given its workload and the likelihood that the DOD will have to
address an increasing number of emerging contaminants in the
future--for example, 1,4 Dioxane, Perfluorohexane sulfonic
acid, and 1,2,3 Trichloropropane--much like it has with per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances in sources of drinking water.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the DOD Emerging Contaminants.

Industrial Policy program support

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense, including funds for Industrial Policy
program support.
The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of
Defense report titled ``Assessing and Strengthening the
Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain
Resiliency of the United States'' includes numerous
recommendations for addressing risks in the industrial base.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN to fund Industrial Policy program
support to facilitate the acquisition of tools and performance
of analysis needed to address industrial base risks.

Improvement of occupational license portability for military spouses
through interstate compacts

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
The committee remains concerned about the lack of
portability of employment licenses and credentials across State
lines, which hinders military spouse employment. Due to the
delays and expense involved in re-licensure and re-
credentialing, many military spouses decide not to practice
their professions. This becomes a financial and career choice
issue for military families, impacting servicemembers' desire
to stay in the military.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN, for the activities outlined in
title V of this Act. The relevant provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into a cooperative agreement with
the Council of State Governments to assist with the funding and
development of interstate compacts on licensed occupations.

National Commission on Military Aviation Safety

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee is recommending a
provision that extends the term for the National Commission on
Military Aviation Safety. The committee notes that this
extension will require additional funding.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the National Commission on
Military Aviation Safety.

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

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
As required by law, the National Commission on Military,
National, and Public Service is expected to deliver its final
report in the spring of 2020. This unique commission will make
important recommendations that, if realized, could affect every
American. Due to the breadth of the Commission's mandate and
the extensive outreach required to engage with Americans across
the country, the commission may exceed its original funding
authorization by a modest amount.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN to provide supplemental funding
for the National Commission on Military, National, and Public
Service.

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative

The budget request included $1.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTN Office of the
Secretary of Defense, of which $75.0 million was for the
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI).
The committee notes that encroachment resulting from
incompatible development and loss of habitat continues to pose
a long-term threat to readiness and to the viability of
military installations, ranges, and airspace throughout the
country. The REPI involves partnerships between the Department
of Defense (DOD), State and local governments, and conservation
organizations to share the costs of acquiring proactive
easements from willing landowners.
The committee continues to support the mission of the REPI
and believes that the program has proven to be highly effective
in addressing encroachment. The committee supports REPI's
mission to ``protect mission capability by cost-sharing the
long-term protection of high-value habitat and limiting
incompatible land uses around DOD ranges and installations''
and to ``help avoid more expensive costs, such as the need for
training workarounds or segmentation and future military
construction to modify or relocate training assets to less-
restricted locations.''
However, the committee is concerned that the DOD continues
to underfund the REPI despite its success to date and the high
degree of leverage from partner contributions. The Department
has expressed concerns about the growing need to protect key
installations, ranges, and airspace yet has failed to match
those concerns with adequate resources.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN for the REPI and strongly
encourages the Department to reflect in future REPI budget
requests the urgency of the problem of encroachment and the
success the REPI has achieved in addressing this problem.

Defense Digital Service expert civilians

The budget request included $324.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), for SAG 4GTQ Washington
Headquarters Services.
The committee recognizes the importance of the Defense
Digital Service in helping the Department of Defense to build,
buy, and deploy technology and digital services.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in OMA for SAG 4GTQ Washington Headquarters Services
for the Defense Digital Service.

Sharkseer transfer

The budget request included $15.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), SAG 9999 Classified Programs.
The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that required the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the operations and maintenance for the Sharkseer cybersecurity
program from the National Security Agency to the Defense
Information Systems Agency.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.1
million in OMDW, SAG 9999 for the Sharkseer program.

Foreign currency fluctuation reduction

The budget request included $158.1 billion for Operation
and Maintenance.
The committee believes that, when foreign currency
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease
of $607.0 million for FCF.

Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps increase

The budget request included $292.8 billion in total
Operations and Maintenance funding, of which $316.3 million was
for Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC).
The committee believes that JROTC programs are an important
program for the Nation and have historically been underfunded
by the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in Operations and Maintenance, to be allocated to the
Services for Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs.

Printing inefficiency reduction

The budget request included $158.1 billion for Operation
and Maintenance.
The committee notes that a recent Government Accountability
Report found numerous inefficiencies in the printing operating
of the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed
decrease of $8.0 million for printing inefficiencies.

Transfer of OCO to Base account

The budget request included $123.9 billion for Operation
and Maintenance in base funding. The committee notes that the
President's budget request included $97.9 billion in the
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities
that are traditionally funded out of base accounts. The
committee believes that OCO for Base funding should be
transferred into the base accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $81.3
billion to Operation and Maintenance base funding.

Items of Special Interest

Arctic search and rescue

The committee is aware that growing international interest
and changing environmental conditions in the Arctic have led to
increased commercial and governmental activity in the High
North. With this steady surge, the committee believes the
capabilities of the United States to conduct search and rescue
operations throughout the Arctic needs to be commensurate for
the activity in the region. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense's Report to Congress on Strategy to
Protect United States National Security Interests in the Arctic
Region, a report required by section 1068 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), identified the need for additional personnel recovery
capability in this region. Specifically, the report calls for
``forward-deployed/based assets in a sustainable location and/
or rapidly deployable air drop response/sustainment packages
suitable to remote land, cold water, or ice pack operating
environments.''
The committee understands that the 176th Wing of the Alaska
National Guard is the closest and only dedicated response force
with the refueling capability to respond to a search and rescue
incident in the Arctic. The committee notes that the unit
currently possesses 2 air-dropped, palletized Arctic
Sustainment Packages to enable the survival of 50 individuals
for 3 or more days in extreme Arctic conditions.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of
Defense to review how additional resources could benefit search
and rescue operations throughout the Arctic region.

Army Training Next virtual reality pilot program

The committee recognizes the advantages of augmenting
rotary wing initial entry aviator training with virtual reality
flight capabilities. The United States Army Aviation Center of
Excellence is executing a series of pilot programs to validate
the effectiveness and potential cost savings of virtual flight
training throughout fiscal year 2019. The committee is
encouraged by the Army's adoption of this training approach,
which will increase frequency and repetitions of basic flight
maneuvers using a low-cost commercial off-the-shelf virtual
training solution.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the committee no later than January 1,
2020, comparing the results of the three pilot programs to the
traditional training curriculum and detailing the results of
the three separate iterations with an emphasis on student
proficiency, comprehension, progress, and cost avoidance.

Battle Record Information Core Environment (BRICE) maintenance
application

The committee is encouraged by the Air Force's Battle
Record Information Core Environment program (BRICE), which was
developed in partnership with industry and validated to the
National Security Agency's National Information Assurance
Partnership standard. This has enabled BRICE to become the
Department of Defense's (DOD) first connected mobile
application authorized for mission-enabling tasks to be
performed with DOD controlled unclassified information
leveraging both cloud (United States Air Force Cloud Computing
Environment) and legacy mainframe systems. The limited
introduction of BRICE to the Air Force Reserve Center aircraft
maintenance community at Davis Monthan AFB has resulted in time
savings per maintenance action, improved data accuracy, and
increased efficiency in repairs and maintenance on A-10
aircraft. The committee is encouraged by the Air Force's BRICE
program and its mission to increase flight readiness while
driving down the cost of maintaining the fleet of A-10
aircraft. The committee recommends that the Air Force examine
opportunities to expand the BRICE iOS app to all Active-Duty
and reserve maintainers that support the A-10 and the F-16
fleets.

Cold spray technology

The committee recognizes the advancements of cold spray
technologies and the need to accelerate the delivery of
technical capabilities to impact the warfighter and to advance
dominant technologies in a timely manner. The committee notes
that the use of cold spray technologies in certain applications
during the production, repair, and maintenance process may lead
to significant cost savings for the Department of Defense. The
committee strongly recommends continued development and use of
this technology across the Services to include science and
technology, manufacturing, and procurement programs.

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

The committee recognizes that on-base utilities systems
within the Department of Defense (DOD) are increasingly being
connected to the internet. The benefits of such connection
could include improved utilities efficiencies and the
collection of more near-real-time data for improved utilities
management. At the same time, the connectivity could expose DOD
utilities systems to cyber threats that could undermine
installation mission capability. Accordingly, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
evaluate: (1) To what extent have the military departments
implemented a DOD instruction to enhance the cybersecurity of
industrial control systems and what, if anything, remains
incomplete as of the time of the start of this review; (2) What
challenges have the military departments encountered in
implementing DOD Instruction 8510.01 and how effectively have
the challenges been overcome; (3) How effectively have the
military departments implemented industry leading practices to
enhance utilities industrial control systems cybersecurity; and
(4) How effectively do the military departments conduct tests
of the cybersecurity of industrial control systems and
implement improvements to security to counter any identified
weaknesses.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a briefing on the preliminary
findings to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2020, with a final report to be provided at a mutually
agreed upon time.

Comptroller General review of mobility in contested environments

The committee recognizes that the United States has the
most advanced military equipment and the best-trained troops in
the world. The committee notes, however, that military strength
means little if the United States cannot deploy and sustain its
forces wherever they are needed. Moving U.S. troops and
military cargo is the role of strategic mobility-airlift to fly
cargo and personnel, sealift to steam cargo and equipment from
the United States, and ships or warehouses based abroad that
pre-position key equipment and sustainment supplies. The
committee understands that future military conflicts are
increasingly likely to occur in an environment contested across
all domains, subsequently restricting freedom of mobility
assets and putting these forces at risk. Operational plans must
reflect the anticipated attrition of both combat and mobility
assets and associated personnel. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense is in the process of a critical
examination of how it executes mobility in contested
environments, but it remains concerned that strategic mobility
requirements may not be fully addressed.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees to address the following: (1) How are
strategic mobility mission requirements evolving, and what
implications, if any, are there for strategic mobility force
structure; (2) What challenges does the Department face in
protecting strategic mobility forces, and what impact, if any,
do these have on maintaining needed warfighting capabilities
and readiness; (3) To what extent has the Department developed
mitigation plans to address any challenges and risk areas, to
include relevant training, exercises, and concept development;
and (4) Any other related matters deemed appropriate in order
to provide a comprehensive examination of mobility in contested
environments.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a preliminary classified briefing to the Senate Armed
Services Committee not later than February 1, 2020, with the
report to be submitted at a date to be determined at the time
of the briefing.

Corrosion prevention briefing

The committee is aware of the significant problem caused by
corrosion, which can lead to costly repairs and decreased
readiness of military forces. The committee notes that
according to a 2016 Department of Defense report, corrosion
costs in 2016 alone were $20.6 billion, and the Government
Accountability Office has produced numerous report citing the
direct correlation between corrosion and readiness. The
committee believes that, to most effectively meet mission-
critical demands for military painter training at bases across
the United States, which directly impacts corrosion, the
Department could establish a competitive bidding process for a
National Center for Military Painter Training and Applied
Research. The committee believes that such a program could
enable the Department to maximize readiness, safety, and cost
savings through corrosion prevention and control by meeting the
demand for trained military painters, growing partnerships in
the military paint industry, and expanding the role of
technology in painter training and certification.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to
provide a briefing, no later than November 1, 2019, to the
congressional defense committees on the following: (1) A list
of facilities, labs, and universities focused on corrosion
prevention, to include a description of work for each location;
(2) Current funding sources for each location; (3) Return on
investment, if applicable, for each location; and (4) A
determination by the Department if a National Center for
Military Painter Training and Applied Research could benefit
the Department, and, if so, the cost, steps, and process
required to create and establish such a center.

Data collection and reporting to validation of small arms simulation
readiness improvements and resourcing planning

The committee continues to recognize that substantial value
can be gained through small arms simulation training systems
that use biometrics, advanced human performance techniques, and
robust data collection and reporting to maximize and verify
improved lethality and readiness requirements. The committee
particularly notes the importance of next generation internet
technology-based systems capable of automatically collecting
and reporting on hundreds of points of trainee data, such as
shooter baselines, rounds fired, target engagement, live-fire
readiness, and qualification standards outcomes. Some of these
systems also use algorithms to determine remediation
requirements.
The committee believes that this type of data collection
and analysis is essential to validating that the appropriate
military servicemembers are receiving the lethality and
warfighter readiness training that they require and to driving
more data-informed resourcing determinations during the
planning, programming, and budgeting process. The committee is
concerned, however, that there continues to be a reliance
across the Services on legacy small arms training systems and
programs of record that are not capable of, or are not required
to, deliver advanced human performance, biometrics, and overall
trainee data collection and reporting capabilities, making it
difficult to validate a system's true training effectiveness,
its cost savings (in ammunition, reduced training time, travel,
and range safety), and overall justification for system
sustainment and budget submissions.
Accordingly, the committee directs each of the Secretaries
of the military departments to provide a report, no later than
February 1, 2020, detailing plans to ensure that all existing
and new small arms training systems, or training-as-a-service
contracts, are capable of delivering advanced human performance
techniques, biometrics, and robust shooter data collection, to
include descriptions of how these data will be used to: (1)
Validate each system's effectiveness in delivering readiness,
lethality requirements, and measurable live fire qualification
improvements; and (2) Drive more informed determinations for
training and readiness resourcing across the planning,
programming, budget, and execution process.

Defense energy resilience tools for project development

The committee is encouraged by the progress made by the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the
military departments to standardize tools to encourage the
implementation of policies that accelerate energy resilience
project development, such as the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Lincoln Laboratories (MIT-LL) life-cycle cost
analysis tool. The tool allows the Department of Defense to
align its mission requirements with cost effective energy
resilience solutions and to meet National Defense Strategy
objectives. The committee notes that senior leaders across the
Department have stated that the Department is developing and
implementing this life-cycle cost analysis tool for use across
the enterprise.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide an implementation plan for the MIT-LL life cycle
cost analysis tool to ensure the effective adoption of mission-
based decision-making and for the successful implementation of
energy resilience projects across the Department of Defense. At
a minimum, the committee directs that the Department provide
the list of military installations that have and will implement
the life-cycle cost analysis tool, along with the funding
required by fiscal year to implement the tool's adoption and
use. This plan shall include the necessary partnerships needed
to develop, implement, and integrate the life-cycle cost
analysis tool in the most cost-effective manner. The Secretary
shall provide this plan to the Senate Armed Services Committee
no later than February 1, 2020.

Development and fielding of expeditionary energy technology in the
Department of Defense

The committee acknowledges the significant logistical
burden that fossil fuel generators place on expeditionary
forces operating at home and abroad. Further, the committee
understands the necessity of increasing agility in the future
operating environment by reducing the logistical footprint
required to sustain forces. Therefore, the committee encourages
the Department of Defense to invest broadly in emerging
technology to harness, integrate, and store energy from
multiple energy sources to extend the operational reach of
Active-Duty, reserve, and National Guard forces.

Encroachment on military installations

The committee notes that the Military Aviation and
Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse was established
years ago to deconflict and strike a balance with potential
encroachment from energy projects near military installations
while assuring that military operations and training continue
unabated and with minimal impact. The committee strongly
encourages the Clearinghouse to continue to ensure mission
compatibility and appropriately collaborate with individual
military installations, States, and developers on any
mitigation measures. Lastly, the committee encourages the
Clearinghouse to consider future military requirements when
reviewing and approving any energy projects to ensure that such
projects are consistent with the National Defense Strategy.

Extended funding obligation period for private contracted ship
maintenance

The committee notes that the administration submitted a
legislative proposal that would enable the Navy to conduct a
ship depot maintenance pilot program to evaluate the benefits
of an extended funding obligation period for private contracted
ship maintenance.
This pilot program would include an extension of the
obligation period of fiscal year 2020 funding for private
contracted ship maintenance through September 30, 2021.
The committee supports the inclusion of this administration
legislative proposal in the Defense Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2020.
The committee believes that the pilot program would
demonstrate that the performance of lengthy maintenance
availabilities, which often cross fiscal years, improves with
additional flexibility to more efficiently employ funds
appropriated by the Congress, before, during, and after
scheduled maintenance availabilities.

Improving Navy radar training and readiness

The committee is aware that the Navy currently lacks
schoolhouse radar training assets for three ship classes,
resulting in no hands-on training for sailors destined for
these ships before reporting aboard ship. The committee notes
the criticality of radar to a ship's defensive capabilities and
that a lack of training has the potential to impact both
overall readiness and combat capability of the fleet. The
committee believes that sailors will be best positioned to
operate, maintain, and fully utilize the capabilities of the
radar with enhanced hands-on training prior to reporting aboard
ship.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 1, 2020, with a plan to
determine what schoolhouse training assets are required for all
ship radar systems to include what resources would be required.
The report shall include at a minimum a complete listing of all
Navy radar systems, land-based assets used to train sailors on
those radar systems, radar systems that do not currently have
land-based radar training assets, and a timeline to acquire
missing land-based radar training assets.

Improving oversight of pilots in non-operational staff positions

The committee has been concerned about the Air Force's
ability to sustain the required numbers of aviators in the face
of competing demands for their services, including increased
demand for aviators in remotely piloted aircraft (RPA)
operating units and continued demand for rated officers in non-
flying positions. The committee commends the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) for its report, published in
February 2019, titled ``Unmanned Aerial Systems: Air Force
Pilot Promotion Rates Have Increased but Oversight Process of
Some Positions Could Be Enhanced'' (GAO-19-155).
In the report, the GAO observed that ``[t]he Air Force has
not reviewed its oversight process to ensure that it is
efficiently managing its non-operational staff positions that
require aviator expertise. Air Force officials explained that
over the last 10 years, the Air Force reduced the number of
squadrons but had not reviewed the number of non-operational
staff positions. Similarly, the Air Force has had no widely
accessible oversight process to monitor whether it had
established an accurate number of non-operational staff
positions required to support the new RPA career field.'' As a
result, the committee believes that, at a minimum, the Air
Force must regularly review justifications for non-operational
staff positions requiring pilot expertise as part of a broader
strategy to address the pilot shortage.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to establish a mechanism to review the justifications for
non-operational staff positions requiring pilot expertise at
regular intervals and to report to the committee by September
30, 2020, on the mechanism to be established to accomplish
these periodic reviews. The Secretary's review and report shall
include evaluation of the mix of positions requiring pilot
expertise as well as the mix of operational positions and
support positions required to support operations.

Liability exposure for electric companies during national emergencies

The committee understands that the Department of Defense's
(DOD) Mission Assurance Strategy emphasizes the importance of
grid-provided power and the ability of DOD installations to
execute their full range of missions. The committee is
concerned that in the event of intentional or unintentional
power outages, DOD installations may not be currently
structured to have assured access to such energy as needed to
implement the National Defense Strategy. Accordingly, the
committee strongly encourages the DOD, in coordination with
other federal agencies, to work with the Congress to find a
solution.

Lightweight ammunition

The committee is aware of continued progress in reducing
weight for vehicle, helicopter, and soldier platforms through
the development and qualification of polymer ammunition and
polymer link systems. These developments support urgent
requirements in reducing the weight burden on all weapon
systems and, in particular, helicopter systems. Further, the
committee understands that, over the last several years,
initial polymer ammunition and polymer links have been
qualified, fielded, and combat proven. There remains a
continued urgent need for further polymer ammunition and
polymer link weight reduction. As such, the committee
recommends continued support to develop and qualify further
weight savings in polymer ammunition and polymer link systems.

Marine Depot Maintenance Command facilities review

The committee notes the organic industrial base serves as
the backbone of our Nation's military readiness. Specific to
the Marine Corps, the committee notes that the Marine Corps'
Marine Depot Maintenance Command (MDMC), comprised of
Production Plant Albany and Production Plant Barstow, provides
worldwide expeditionary logistics support to the Fleet Marine
Force, other forces, and agencies. The committee understands
that the MDMC is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and
overhaul of ground equipment that keeps the Nation's fighting
forces' weapon systems in a constant state of readiness.
The committee notes that the facilities at Production Plant
Albany average 26 years, which hinders its ability to adopt and
sustain innovative processes and equipment solutions, thereby
hampering its overall effectiveness and hurting the overall
readiness of the Marine Corps. For example, the committee
understands that automation and robotics in the blast and paint
processes would greatly improve throughput but the current
facilities will not support the technology. The committee
further notes that welding operations need welding positions to
increase safety, efficiency, and quality but the facilities do
not have sufficient space and overhead clearance.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to review the current facilities of the MDMC and provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees, not later
than February 1, 2020, on how the facilities at Production
Plant Albany and Production Plant Barstow impact the Marine
Corps' ability to adopt and sustain innovative process and
equipment solutions. The briefing shall include cost estimates
and timelines for improving throughput and increasing
efficiency with items such as but not limited to automation,
robotics, and welding positions.

National Guard Unit equipped flying squadrons

The committee recognizes that the Air National Guard
enterprise is based on established capstone principles that
notionally set the foundational framework for mission
allocation in the 54 states and territories. One of those
Capstone Principles is to allocate at least one unit-equipped
wing and flying squadron to each State. New Mexico is one of
three states-the others being Virginia and Washington-that have
an operational flying mission, but, due to the classic
associate construct, it lacks ownership of aircraft. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in
consultation with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to
report to the committee within 60 days of the date of the
enactment of this Act to present additional options for
achieving an operational flying mission in each State.

Prepositioned Assets in the Indo-Pacific Region

The committee understands that the Department of Defense
(DOD) positions billions of dollars' worth of assets, including
combat vehicles, rations, medical supplies, and repair parts,
at strategic locations around the world to use during early
phases of operations. In the 2018 National Defense Strategy,
the DOD acknowledged an increasingly complex global security
environment, characterized by the re-emergence of long-term,
strategic competition among nations such as China and Russia.
In addition, the strategy emphasized the need for investments
to prioritize prepositioned stocks in order to enable resilient
and agile logistics during initial operations. In February
2019, the Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM)
called China and Russia-with their expanding and modernizing
militarizes-key threats to the region. For many years, the
Government Accountability Office has identified the potential
for duplication among the Services' prepositioned stock
programs due to limited joint oversight and fragmented
management within the DOD. Further, the committee has had an
ongoing interest in DOD's strategy and oversight of its
propositioning programs.
Accordingly, given these issues and the National Defense
Strategy's priorities, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to evaluate the following: (1)
What types of equipment and materiel does the DOD preposition
in the Pacific region and what is the condition of these
assets; (2) To what extent has DOD assessed its strategy for
prepositioning assets in the Pacific region based on the 2018
National Defense Strategy; (3) To what extent do the Services
coordinate their prepositioning programs in the Pacific region
in order to achieve efficiencies and reduce unnecessary
duplication; (4) What challenges, if any, does DOD face in
prepositioning assets in the Pacific region; (5) What do the
Services' operational and logistics concepts mean for future
prepositioning requirements; (6) What types of equipment is
necessary and at what locations; and (7) Are future plans being
coordinated by the Services and informed by INDOPACOM
contingency plans?
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the committee on the preliminary
observations of this review, not later than February 1, 2020,
and to submit a report on a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing.

Preservation of the Force and Families initiative

The committee notes that nearly 2 decades of continuous
combat operations and the associated effects of an
extraordinarily high operational tempo in physically and
mentally demanding environments has placed enormous stress on
our special operations forces (SOF) and their families. In
response to the unique requirements of SOF, U.S. Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) established the Preservation of the
Force and Families (POTFF) initiative in order to provide
holistic physiological, psychological, family, and spiritual
performance support programs at all echelons of SOCOM and the
SOF components. The committee strongly supports the POTFF
program and believes that it is integral for ensuring the
readiness, health, and mission effectiveness of SOF while also
providing SOF families with support to deal with the unique
challenges that they face, including unpredictable training and
deployment cycles. The committee encourages SOCOM to continue
to prioritize the POTFF program and seek innovative
opportunities to ensure POTFF remains effective and responsive
to the needs of SOF and their families.

Public-to-public partnerships briefing requirement

The committee recognizes the Department of Defense's
continuing efforts to control costs and increase reliability in
its installation utility systems. Whether through energy
savings performance contracts, utility energy savings
contracts, or some other contract vehicle, the committee
commends the Department for leveraging private partnerships to
reduce costs and enhance installation resiliency.
The committee notes with interest that the Department
commissioned a report in 2016 on the use of public-to-public
partnerships by military installations. Such partnerships,
including intergovernmental service agreements, may be one
approach to sustaining operations and services for military
installations. The committee believes that public-to-public
partnerships should continue to be a tool for the Services to
increase installation readiness and resiliency and to enhance
military families' quality of life.
The committee recommends that the Department work with
State and local communities to lower barriers that inhibit
consideration or implementation of public-to-public
partnerships. The committee is interested in novel approaches
to installation readiness and resiliency and is willing to
consider providing new authorities to support such efforts.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees, not later
than December 1, 2019, on current public-to-public
partnerships. The briefing shall include at a minimum the
number of public-to-public partnerships in place, the estimated
cost savings such partnerships provide, barriers preventing
broader use of such partnerships, and partnerships that are
currently under consideration.

Recycled content in clothing items

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) on
its most recent update to DOD Instruction 4105.11,
``Procurement of Sustainable Goods and Services,'' dated August
31, 2018. Further, the committee supports the DOD's efforts to
give preference to the procurement of sustainable goods and
recycled content products. These efforts were highlighted in
the DOD's October 2012 Report to Congress on the Preference for
Uniforms, Organizational Clothing, and Personal Equipment that
Contain Recycled Materials, a report required by the Senate
report accompanying S. 1253 (S. Rept. 112-26) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This report
cited four military clothing items that, at the time, used
recycled materials, including the Protective Combat Uniform for
the Special Forces, the Third Generation Extended Cold Weather
Clothing System, underwear, and the Army fleece jacket.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not
later than February 1, 2020, on the feasibility of
incorporating more recycled content products into these
clothing items and other environmental protection clothing
items.

Report on future Combat Search and Rescue in support of National
Defense Strategy

The committee acknowledges that the Air Force is the only
service with a Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) capability to
provide to a Joint Force Commander and is concerned with
maintaining this critical mission in the face of great power
competition. Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force to complete a comprehensive study on the
future combat search and rescue mission in the near peer threat
environment expected in the 2030s. Prior to any realignment of
rescue assets and by September 30, 2020, the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force shall present the findings and recommendations of
the study to the congressional defense committees. This study
shall address:
(1) The evolving threat environment and its
significance to the CSAR mission;
(2) The optimal organizational responsibility for
CSAR and components of a task force;
(3) Alternative solutions to maintaining the social
contract with isolated personnel (IP) that a rescue
force is available to return the IP to friendly forces;
(4) Title 10 service responsibilities and joint force
mission sets, to include command and control, planning
and execution, and IP recovery; and
(5) Any other matters that the Chief of Staff deems
relevant.

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

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
lacks clear and consistent guidelines for maintaining and
disposing historic aircraft and spacecraft. The national
collection of historic military aircraft and spacecraft is an
important asset that helps honor our veterans and educates the
public about key milestones in American history and military
technology. However, there have been recent instances of
historical aircraft being destroyed or sold for scrap without
opportunity for the Department or an aviation museum to
consider their preservation. It is in the best interest of the
public to ensure that the Department has a clear process to
determine disposition of historic aircraft and spacecraft given
their historical value.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study that reviews the existing process for
retiring and disposing historical military aircraft and
spacecraft. The study shall also recommend a strategy with
clear and consistent guidelines for the preservation,
restoration, or disposition of historic aircraft and
spacecraft. In addition, the study shall consider the merits of
creating a review board comprised of representatives from
service aviation museums and other public aircraft museums to
ensure that deliberations relating to historic aircraft and
spacecraft are inclusive of various perspectives. The Secretary
shall present the results of the study in a report to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
2020.

Report on Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
contamination on military installations

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to submit
to the congressional defense committees, not later than March
1, 2020, a report listing military and Coast Guard
installations or facilities potentially germane to the
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid
Lifetime Drinking Water (PFOA) Health Advisories established by
the Environmental Protection Agency and those whose drinking
water supply may exceed the PFOA and PFOS levels recommended in
these advisories. The Secretary shall consult with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and
affected States, tribes, and local governments, using
information on PFOA and PFOS manufacturing and use.

Report on Special Federal Aviation Regulation waivers for U.S. air
carriers and recommendations to expedite re-designation of
civil aircraft as state aircraft

The committee is aware that there are cases in which U.S.
forces do not have organic capacity to provide for personnel
recovery and medical evacuation and are forced to rely on
contract aircraft and aircrew to meet this critical mission
requirement. The committee encourages the Department of Defense
(DOD) to utilize U.S. companies to fill the mission requirement
to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the committee is
concerned that the existing process for DOD to obtain Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) waivers for U.S. air
carriers prevents the Department from executing critical
missions in a safe, effective, and timely manner.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to promptly notify the congressional defense committees,
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, on Special
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) waivers requested by the DOD
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that are: (1)
Approved; (2) Denied; or (3) Still awaiting action from the FAA
15 days after the original request date. The committee also
directs the Secretary to conduct a study on the existing
process for DOD's re-designating civil aircraft as state
aircraft and, based on the findings, to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees, not later than February 1,
2020, with recommendations that would expedite the designation
process.

Rotary-wing aviation foreign internal defense

The committee notes that, in 2012, U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) decided to transfer responsibility for the
rotary-wing aviation foreign internal defense (RW AvFID)
mission from U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command to U.S.
Army Special Operations Command (USASOC). At the time, the
committee expressed concern about the planned transfer of
responsibility and the potential degradation of the quality and
availability of special operations-unique RW capabilities to
meet the requirements of the geographic combatant commanders,
particularly those capabilities resident in the 160th Special
Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR). While the committee
understands the importance of training partner nation aviation
forces and supports the broader AvFID mission, there remain
concerns about whether the current designation of USASOC and,
in particular, the use of the 160th SOAR as the principal
special operations forces aviation unit for RW AvFID is the
most efficient and effective approach to meet related
requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of
SOCOM to provide a briefing not later than July 1, 2019, on
SOCOM's current approach to the RW AvFID mission. The briefing
shall address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) A description of SOCOM's current RW AvFID
requirements;
(2) A description of any changes to USASOC's
organization, manning, and resourcing as a result of
its assumption of the RW AvFID mission;
(3) An assessment of USASOC's operational readiness
and ability to meet RW AvFID requirements;
(4) An assessment of the impact of USASOC's assuming
the RW AvFID mission on its ability to meet its other
non-FID-related RW operational and training
requirements;
(5) Any other matters that the Commander deems
relevant.

Storm water utilities privatization

The committee has repeatedly expressed its support for the
utilities privatization (UP) program, which enhances energy
supply, efficiency, reliability, and resilience. Privatization
of storm water systems is especially important, particularly in
light of recent devastating storms that imperil base
infrastructure inland and along the coasts. Despite clear
direction from the Congress, elements of the Department have
taken positions on storm water privatization that contravene
the intent of the Congress and prevent the Services from
realizing the financial and readiness benefits of UP. The
Army's policy, however, has been a welcome exception to this
general recalcitrance. The Army successfully privatized storm
water systems at Fort Knox pursuant to section 2688 of title
10, United States Code, in 2004. Because the committee supports
a data-driven approach as outlined in the Department's
supplemental guidance on UP issued in February 2019, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
report, no later than March 1, 2020, analyzing the savings and
efficiencies that it has realized from the Fort Knox
privatization effort. The report shall be submitted in
unclassified form and for public distribution, but it may
contain a restricted annex.

Study on fire extinguishers

The committee is aware that portable fire extinguishers are
essential to the safety of members of the Armed Forces and
their families. The committee notes that protection of
servicemembers and their families is imperative to the
readiness of the force. Every Department of Defense building
should apply building and fire codes that are in line with
national model codes and State building and fire codes. The
committee notes that national model codes promulgated by the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the
International Code Council (ICC) have been adopted by almost
every State in the Nation. The committee is concerned that the
removal of these devices and subsequent adherence to the change
in Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) has the potential to harm
force readiness and protection across the Services.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to deliver a report to the congressional defense committees, no
later than March 1, 2020, on the current fire suppression
mechanisms, with emphasis on the need for portable fire
extinguishers, employed by the Department. The study should
include but not be limited to: (1) A breakdown of all fire
codes that the Department follows in accordance with
requirements set forth by the national model fire codes
developed by the NFPA and the ICC; (2) Any fire codes the
Department does not follow with justification for why it is
waived; (3) The types of buildings that currently employ both
sprinklers and extinguishers; (4) A list of high-risk types of
buildings that would benefit from redundant fire suppression
that include risks to personnel or egress concerns; (5)
Specific to on-base housing, what, if any, fire extinguishers
are supplied for cooking areas by either the Department or
private contractors; (6) Recommendations, including a timeline,
on how to implement redundant fire suppression mechanisms and
what changes to the UFC would be required.

Westover Air Reserve Base--Defense Logistics Agency study of fuel
pipeline

The committee is concerned that the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) has chosen to transition fuel services to Westover
Air Reserve Base (ARB) from pipeline services to tank trucks as
a delivery method. The DLA solicited a jet fuel requirement and
evaluated both the Buckeye pipeline and tank truck services,
utilizing a bid evaluation model (BEM) and a mixed integer
linear optimization program that evaluates a variety of
factors, including product prices, transportation costs,
additive costs, and excessive throughput charges. The committee
understands that, after utilizing the BEM, the laid-down cost
for fuel tank truck services was over 1 cent lower than the
laid-down cost for pipeline delivery, and the resultant savings
were $42,000. The committee notes that the DLA claims that the
Buckeye jet fuel pipeline to Westover ARB is still available
for use in the event of delivery interruptions.
The committee needs to understand the strategic impacts of
this action to Department of Defense operators who may rely on
this pipeline during surge conditions and contingency
operations, especially given that Westover ARB is the largest
reserve airbase in the country. Part of its core mission and
function is to provide surge capacity to the expeditionary Air
Force during any rapid deployment to Europe, the Middle East,
and elsewhere. The committee notes that Westover ARB has
demonstrated this surge capacity during real world
contingencies in the past. The decision to switch from pipeline
to truck delivery was based solely on cost, and the savings,
while noteworthy, are not significant. The committee is
concerned that this action could have profound impacts during
an emergency and questions whether the movement from pipeline
to fuel trucks may increase risk for rather small cost savings.
Therefore, the committee directs the DLA to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees, no later than
February 1, 2020, on: (1) How emergency and contingencies were
factored into the DLA's analysis; (2) How emergencies and
contingencies will be handled when there is a rapid increase in
the need for fuel; (3) How quickly the Buckeye pipeline can be
activated during an emergency or during any day-to-day
disruptions of fuel delivery to Westover; and (4) Whether there
would be any cost implications of re-activating the fuel
pipeline to Westover ARB.

Women servicemember personal protective equipment

The committee understands that a leading cause of injury
among servicemembers is ill-fitting personal protective
equipment (PPE) and combat gear and that women
disproportionately incur such injuries. The committee further
recognizes that properly fitting equipment enhances performance
and reduces safety risks. The committee believes that all
servicemembers should be properly equipped with correctly
fitting PPE and combat gear during training and deployment,
especially given that consistent physical training with PPE
used in a combat environment has been demonstrated to decrease
the likelihood of injury. Although the committee acknowledges
recent progress made by the Services to provide appropriate PPE
and combat gear for a variety of body types, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to identify and address
barriers to equipment access and delays in delivery,
particularly when servicemembers require custom or nonstandard-
size equipment.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department to
prioritize testing, contracting, procuring, and fielding new
PPE-particularly with regard to appropriate sizes for women
servicemembers--to ensure operational readiness and safety,
which will enhance performance, lethality, and combat readiness
while improving gender integration across the Services. The
Secretary should in turn encourage the Services to pay
particular attention to women-specific body armor, helmets--
including those used by tankers and pilots--and coveralls in
sizes that fit women mechanics, tankers, and pilots.
Additionally, the committee encourages the Services to make
available lightweight, adjustable, and modular ruck frames
being used by the Marine Corps but not available in other
Services. Lastly, the committee believes that the Department
should ensure that all equipment is sourced in quantities that
allow them to be issued at initial training and used during
deployment.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Active-Duty end strengths for fiscal year 2020, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Change from
FY 2019 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2020 FY 2019
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................... 487,500 480,000 480,000 0 -7,500
Navy.......................................... 335,400 340,500 340,500 0 +5,100
Marine Corps.................................. 186,100 186,200 186,200 0 +100
Air Force..................................... 329,100 332,800 332,800 0 +3,700
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 1,338,100 1,339,500 1,339,500 0 +1,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2020, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Change from
FY 2019 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2020 FY 2019
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 343,500 336,000 336,000 0 -7,500
Army Reserve.................................. 199,500 189,500 189,500 0 -10,000
Navy Reserve.................................. 59,100 59,000 59,000 0 -100
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 107,100 107,700 107,700 0 600
Air Force Reserve............................. 70,000 70,100 70,100 0 100
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 817,700 800,800 800,800 0 0
Coast Guard Reserve........................... 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
(sec. 412)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2020, as shown
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Change from
FY 2019 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2020 FY 2019
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 30,595 30,595 30,595 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 16,386 16,511 16,511 0 125
Navy Reserve.................................. 10,110 10,155 10,155 0 45
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,386 2,386 0 125
Air National Guard............................ 19,861 22,637 22,637 0 2,776
Air Force Reserve............................. 3,849 4,431 4,431 0 582
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 83,062 86,715 86,715 0 3,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components
of the Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2020, as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Change from
FY 2019 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2020 FY 2019
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 22,294 22,294 22,294 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 6,492 6,492 6,492 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 15,861 13,569 13,569 0 -2,292
Air Force Reserve............................. 8,880 8,938 8,938 0 58
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 53,527 51,293 51,293 0 -2,234
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The provision would prohibit under any circumstances the
coercion of a military technician (dual status) by a State into
accepting an offer of realignment or conversion to any other
military status, including as a member of the Active, Guard,
and Reserve program of a reserve component. The provision would
further specify that if a technician declines to participate in
such a realignment or conversion, no further action may be
taken against the individual or the individual's position. The
provision would require the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
to certify by January 1, 2020, to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives the number
of positions realigned from military technician (dual status)
to a position in the Active, Guard, and Reserve (AGR) program
of the Air National Guard during fiscal year 2019. Finally, the
provision would specify that if the number so certified is less
than 3,190, that the authorized strength for Air National Guard
military technicians be increased by the difference between the
number certified and 3,190 (with a maximum increase of 2,292)
and that authorized AGR strength for the Air National Guard be
decreased by that same amount.
The committee is concerned that the Air National Guard did
not properly validate its requirements under its realignment
initiative, relying instead on a wishlist from the States
rather than a rigorous and analytical process to determine what
positions should be realigned, could be realigned, and what
should remain technician. While the committee tentatively
supports the Administration's request for fiscal year 2020,
subject to the adjustment mechanism provided in the provision,
the committee reserves the right to reassess this authorization
as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
moves through the legislative process, based on the reporting
requirements set forth below.
The committee directs the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau to provide to the committee quarterly reports on the
number of positions that have been realigned from technician to
AGR, by state, occupational specialty, and grade, beginning
immediately with data available for fiscal year 2019 and
continuing quarterly through May 1, 2021.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
Active Duty for operational support under section 115(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2020, as
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Change from
FY 2019 -----------------------------------------------------
Service Authorized FY 2020 FY 2019
Request Recommendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorized strengths for Marine Corps Reserves on active duty (sec.
415)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12011(a)(1) and section 12012(a) of title 10, United
States Code, by adjusting the controlled grade caps for field
grade officers and senior enlisted marines to account for
increased end strength in the Marine Corps Active Reserve
Program. The provision would also expand the field grade
officer and senior enlisted strength tables to allow for future
end strength increases.

Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)

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

Budget Items

Military personnel funding changes

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

[Changes in millions of dollars]

Military personnel underexecution..................... -918.98
Total............................................. -918.98

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $918.98 million. This
amount includes: (1) A reduction of $918.98 million to reflect
the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment
of average annual MILPERS under execution.

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Repeal of codified specification of authorized strengths of certain
commissioned officers on active duty (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 523 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Congress to authorize annually the number of officers serving
on Active Duty in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and
colonel in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps or lieutenant
commander, commander, and captain in the Navy. This provision
would take effect in fiscal year 2021 and repeal the authorized
officer strength table, including all of the previous
exceptions to the officer strength table.
The committee notes the officer strength table was
originally included as a fundamental feature of the Defense
Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) (Public Law 96-513).
The strength table was designed to serve as an effective
limitation on the number of mid-grade officers within each
service. The House report to accompany the legislation (H.
Rept. 96-1462) explained that the table would be adjusted over
time to align with emerging officer manpower requirements.
However, in practice, the authorized strength table is rarely
updated and it is no longer linked to strategy or actual
officer requirements.
As of the end of fiscal year 2018, each service is largely
unaffected by the limitations imposed by the strength table.
For example, the Army finished fiscal year 2018 at
approximately 78 percent of its authorization for officers
serving in the grade of major. Majors in the Air Force and
Marine Corps were respectively at 94 percent and 89 percent of
authorized levels. The Navy finished fiscal year 2018 at 89
percent of authorized levels in the grade of lieutenant
commander. While each service operates more closely to the
strength table limit for progressively higher grades (e.g., the
Army was manned at approximately 86 percent of authorized
lieutenant colonel end strength), the table does not
effectively limit the Services in the manner envisioned by the
original DOPMA legislation.
The committee authorizes annual end strength levels for the
overall active and reserve components and numerous other
subsets of total force manpower. This allows end strength to
fluctuate to meet strategic and budgetary necessities.
Similarly, this provision would require each military service
annually to justify required mid-grade officer manpower needs
to support an annual authorization from Congress. This
provision would provide greater flexibility to the military,
while also ensuring Congress continues to perform its vital
oversight role in ensuring the officer corps is effectively
managed.
The provision would not take effect until fiscal year 2021,
which would provide the Department of Defense the amount of
time necessary to include an officer end strength request in
the fiscal year 2021 budget request.
Maker of original appointments in a regular or reserve component of
commissioned officers previously subject to original
appointment in other type of component (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 531 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to make regular officer transfer
appointments onto the Active-Duty list for reserve officers
currently included on the reserve active-status list.
The provision would also amend section 12203 of title 10,
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to make
reserve officer transfer appointments onto the reserve active-
status list for regular officers currently included on the
Active-Duty list. The provision would also deem an officer who
receives an original appointment as a regular commissioned
officer in a grade under section 531 of title 10, United States
Code, to have also received an original appointment as a
reserve officer.
The committee notes that each of the military departments
has expressed a desire to expedite the transfer of officers
between the active and reserve components. One hurdle in the
current transfer process is the requirement for separate
appointments into each component. This requirement sometimes
results in a break-in-service for officers who are attempting
to transfer from the active component into the reserve
component, which can adversely affect a servicemember's pay and
benefits. Additionally, the delay experienced by many officers
as a result of the current transfer process sometimes
discourages officers from transitioning into a different
component.
Of particular importance is retaining regular officers as
they transition off of Active Duty. As a practical matter, the
Services have only one opportunity to retain an officer as a
member of a reserve component. It is rare for an officer to
return to the reserve component after fully separating from the
military. Therefore, the committee believes that removing
barriers that unnecessarily delay the active-to-reserve
transfer process is an important step in retaining well-trained
officer personnel.
Furnishing of adverse information on officers to promotion selection
boards (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 615 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the
grades of officers for which credible information of an adverse
nature must be furnished to a promotion selection board. In
addition, the provision would require that credible information
of an adverse nature be furnished to a promotion selection
board and its members at each stage or phase of the board,
concurrent with the screening, rating, assessment, evaluation,
discussion, or other consideration of the officer or of the
officer's official military personnel file.
Limitation on number of officers recommendable for promotion by
promotion selection boards (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the
number of officers who may be recommended for promotion by a
promotion selection board to no more than 95 percent of
officers who are in a given promotion zone.
Expansion of authority for continuation on active duty of officers in
certain military specialties and career tracks (sec. 505)
The committee recommends a provision that would correct a
technical oversight in section 506 of the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) by amending section 637a of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize each of the Secretaries of the
military departments to continue certain officers serving in
the pay grades of O-3 and O-4 in an occupational specialty,
rating, or specialty code, as designated by the relevant
secretary, who are not yet retirement eligible but would
otherwise be subject to statutory separation to complete up to
40 years of active service.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
any increase in the retired grade of an officer resulting from
the reopening of the determination or certification of that
officer's retired grade be made by the Secretary of Defense, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Any associated
modification of the officer's retired pay would go into effect
on the effective date of the increase in the officer's retired
grade and would not be retroactive to the date of the officer's
retirement. The provision would apply to any increase in
retired grade that occurs after the date of the enactment of
this Act, regardless of when the officer retired.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require
each of the Secretaries of the military departments to make
available on a public website certain biographical, assignment-
related information about the relevant military department's
general and flag officers, including public notice when a
general or flag officer has been reassigned to a new duty
position. Each secretary may decline to publish such
information only for reasons of risk to the individual officer
or to national security and only after informing the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in writing.

Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

Repeal of requirement for review of certain Army Reserve officer unit
vacancy promotions by commanders of associated active duty
units (sec. 511)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 1113 of the Army National Guard Combat Readiness Reform
Act of 1992, which was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484).
This section required the review of a recommended unit vacancy
promotion of an officer in the Selected Reserve by the
commander of the Active-Duty unit associated with the Selected
Reserve unit of that officer.

Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

Modification of authorities on management of deployments of members of
the Armed Forces and related unit operating and personnel tempo
matters (sec. 515)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 991 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the
ability of the Secretary of Defense to delegate deployment
threshold exceptions to Senate-confirmed civilian officials
within the Department of Defense. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe a separate policy
to track dwell time for reserve members of the Armed Forces.

Repeal of requirement that parental leave be taken in one increment
(sec. 516)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the
requirement that military leave taken in connection with the
birth or adoption of a child be taken only in one increment.

Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed Forces (sec. 517)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
policy of the Department of Defense to promote and maintain
digital engineering as a core competency of the civilian and
military workforces of the Department. The provision would
require the Secretary of Defense to appoint a civilian official
of the Department of Defense, at a level no lower than
assistant secretary of defense, for the development and
discharge of the policy. The provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an implementation plan to the
congressional defense committees not later than June 1, 2020.

Modification of notification on manning of afloat naval forces (sec.
518)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 525 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) to
make technical changes to congressional notifications germane
to the manning of afloat naval forces.

Report on expansion of the Close Airman Support team approach of the
Air Force to the other Armed Forces (sec. 519)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretaries of the military departments to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a joint report on the feasibility and
advisability of expanding the Close Airman Support team
approach employed by the Air Force for use by the other Armed
Forces.

Subtitle D--Military Justice and Related Matters

Part I--Matters Relating to Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of
Sexual Assault Generally

Department of Defense-wide policy and military department-specific
programs on reinvigoration of the prevention of sexual assault
involving members of the Armed Forces (sec. 521)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to promulgate a comprehensive policy to
reinvigorate the prevention of sexual assault among members of
the Armed Forces, within 180 days after enactment of this Act.
The provision would require in the comprehensive policy
inclusion of programs that: (1) Provide education and training
on the prevention of sexual assault; (2) Promote healthy
relationships; (3) Are designed to empower and enhance the role
of non-commissioned officers in the prevention of sexual
assault; (4) Foster social courage to promote interventions to
prevent sexual assault; (5) Address behaviors across the
continuum of harm; (6) Counter alcohol abuse, including binge
drinking; and (7) Encompass such other matters as the Secretary
of Defense deems appropriate.

Enactment and expansion of policy on withholding of initial disposition
authority for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (sec. 522)

The committee recommends a provision that would vest only
in a commissioned officer in a grade not below 0-6, who is
authorized to convene special courts-martial, the authority to
determine the disposition of specified offenses under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code).
The provision would establish that, when the victim of any
such offense is in a different chain of command than the
subject, only an officer of like grade with special court-
martial convening authority in the chain of command of the
victim may determine the disposition of offenses in connection
with the victim's alleged misconduct arising out of the
incident.
The permissible dispositions determinations that may be
rendered by such an officer include: (1) No action; (2)
Administrative action; (3) Imposition of non-judicial
punishment; (4) Preferral of charges; (5) Dismissal or referral
of charges to court-martial for trial if charges were preferred
by a subordinate; or (6) Forwarding the charges to a superior
or subordinate authority for further disposition.
Generally, if an officer's disposition determination
differs from the recommendation made by the officer's legal
advisor, the matter will be referred to a Special Victim
Prosecutor, Senior Trial Counsel, or Regional Trial Counsel not
in the chain of command of the officer making the initial
disposition determination for review and recommendation to a
staff judge advocate in the chain of command. That staff judge
advocate would advise the next superior commander, who will
decide whether to endorse or supersede the initial disposition
determination.
The training provided to commissioned officers in the
grades of 0-6 and above on the exercise of such disposition
determination authority must include specific training on
sexual harassment, sexual assault, and family abuse and
domestic violence, as the Secretary of Defense deems
appropriate, to inform such disposition determinations.

Training for Sexual Assault Initial Disposition Authorities on exercise
of disposition authority for sexual assault and collateral
offenses (sec. 523)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
comprehensive training for Sexual Assault Initial Disposition
Authorities, as defined by the April 20, 2012, Secretary of
Defense memorandum, ``Withholding Initial Disposition Authority
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual
Assault Cases,'' on the exercise of their authorities in such
cases, with a view to enhancing the capabilities of such
authorities and promoting trust and confidence in the military
justice system.

Expansion of responsibilities of commanders for victims of sexual
assault committed by another member of the Armed Forces (sec.
524)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
commander of a member of the Armed Forces who is the victim of
a sexual assault by another member of the Armed Forces to
provide notification to the victim of every significant event
associated with the investigation and prosecution of the sexual
assault and, as applicable, to the confinement of the offender.
Commanders would not be required to provide such notifications
to a victim who elects not to receive them. Commanders would be
charged to document any notifications provided to a victim as
well as any election by a victim not to receive notifications.
Further, were an alleged offender subject to prosecution by
both court-martial and Federal or State civilian court, the
provision would require the commander to create and maintain
documentation of the victim's preference as to the forum in
which the alleged offender should be prosecuted.

Training for commanders in the Armed Forces on their role in all stages
of military justice in connection with sexual assault (sec.
525)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
training provided to all military commanders to include
comprehensive training on the role of a commander: (1) In all
stages of the military justice process in connection with
sexual assault committed by a member of the Armed Forces,
including investigation and prosecution; (2) In ensuring that a
victim of sexual assault is informed of, and has the
opportunity to obtain, the assistance available by law; (3) In
ensuring that the victim is afforded all due process rights and
protections authorized under law; (4) In preventing
retaliation; (5) In establishing and maintaining a healthy
command climate; and (6) In any other matters in connection
with sexual assault deemed appropriate by the Secretary of
Defense.
The provision would further require that the training
provided to commanders incorporate best practices in all
matters covered. These best practices should be identified and
brought current through periodic surveys and reviews.

Notice to victims of alleged sexual assault of pendency of further
administrative action following a determination not to refer to
trial by court-martial (sec. 526)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to require a
commander who determines not to refer a case of alleged sexual
assault for trial by court-martial to provide the victim with
notification, no less frequently than monthly, of the status of
any further action in the case, including non-judicial
punishment, administrative action, or no action, until a final
determination of such further action is made.

Safe to report policy applicable across the Armed Forces (sec. 527)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe a Safe to Report policy
applicable to all members of the Armed Forces, across both
active and reserve components, and to cadets and midshipmen at
the military service academies. A Safe to Report policy is one
in which a victim of sexual assault who may have committed
minor collateral misconduct at or about the time of the assault
or whose minor collateral misconduct is discovered only as the
result of the investigation of the sexual assault may report
the assault to authorities without fear of discipline, except
in cases in which aggravating circumstances increase the
gravity of the minor collateral misconduct or its impact on
military good order and discipline.
The provision would define minor collateral misconduct as
including: (1) Improper use and possession of alcohol; (2)
Consensual intimate behavior, including adultery or
fraternization; (3) Presence in off-limits areas; and (4) Other
misconduct specified in the regulations promulgated.
The provision would further require that the regulations
promulgated by the Secretary specify the aggravating
circumstances that would increase the gravity of minor
collateral misconduct or its impact on good order and
discipline.

Report on expansion of Air Force safe to report policy across the Armed
Forces (sec. 528)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of
the military departments and the Secretary of Homeland
Security, to submit a report assessing the feasibility and
advisability of applying across the Armed Forces, the Safe to
Report policy currently applicable only in the Air Force to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives within 180 days of the enactment of this Act.
The Safe to Report policy currently in effect in the Air
Force provides that a member of the Armed Forces who is a
victim of a sexual assault committed by another member of the
Armed Forces but who may have committed minor collateral
misconduct at or about the time of the sexual assault or whose
minor collateral misconduct is discovered only as a result of
the investigation of the sexual assault may report the assault
to authorities without fear or receipt of discipline in
connection with that minor collateral misconduct.

Proposal for separate punitive article in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice on sexual harassment (sec. 529)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report setting forth legislative and
administrative actions required to establish a punitive article
on sexual harassment in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The report would be required to be submitted within 180 days of
the date of the enactment of this Act.

Treatment of information in Catch a Serial Offender Program for certain
purposes (sec. 530)

The committee recommends a provision that would exclude
reports filed with the Catch a Serial Offender Program from
application of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).
Further, the provision would make plain that transmittal or
receipt of a restricted report of sexual assault to or by the
Catch a Serial Offender Program would not terminate the
report's treatment or status as restricted.

Report on preservation of recourse to restricted report on sexual
assault for victims of sexual assault following certain victim
or third-party communications (sec. 531)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the feasibility and advisability of a Department of
Defense policy that would permit a victim of a sexual assault,
when the victim is a member of the Armed Forces or an adult
dependent of such a member, to have a report of the assault
made by the victim to a member of the Armed Forces in the
victim's or victim's sponsor's chain of command, or to military
law enforcement, treated as a restricted report. A report on
the assault made by any individual other than the victim would
be similarly treated. In preparing the report, which would be
due not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary would be required to consult with the
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and
Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces.

Authority for return of personal property to victims of sexual assault
who file a Restricted Report before conclusion of related
proceedings (sec. 532)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 586 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) to require the Secretary
of Defense to prescribe procedures under which a victim of
sexual assault who files a restricted report may, at any time
and on a confidential basis, request the return of the victim's
personal property obtained as part of the sexual assault
forensic examination. Any such request on the part of the
victim would not affect the restricted nature of the victim's
report of sexual assault. The provision would also require a
Sexual Assault Response Coordinator or Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Victim Advocate to inform the victim of
his or her right to request the return of personal property
under these procedures but also that any such return might
negatively affect a subsequent adjudication of the case, should
the victim later decide to convert the restricted report to an
unrestricted report. The provision would not affect the
requirement to retain a sexual assault forensic examination kit
for the period required in law.

Extension of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution,
and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 533)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 546(f)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) to extend the term of the Defense Advisory
Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual
Assault in the Armed Forces by 5 years.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish and maintain within the
Department of Defense a Defense Advisory Committee on the
Prevention of Sexual Misconduct. The Advisory Committee would
be established not later than 180 days after the enactment of
this Act and would comprise of not fewer than 20 members,
including persons with expertise in the prevention of sexual
assault and behaviors on the sexual assault continuum of harm,
the prevention of suicide, and the change in culture of large
organizations. The Advisory Committee would coordinate with the
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and
Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces on matters of
joint interest and, not later than March 30 of each year, would
submit an annual report on its activities to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Independent reviews and assessments on race and ethnicity in the
investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault in
the Armed Forces (sec. 535)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and
Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces to conduct a
review and assessment of the race and ethnicity of
servicemembers accused, charged, or convicted of certain sexual
offenses.

Report on mechanisms to enhance the integration and synchronization of
activities of Special Victim Investigation and Prosecution
personnel with activities of military criminal investigation
organizations (sec. 536)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report setting forth proposals to enhance the integration and
synchronization of Special Victim Investigation and Prosecution
personnel with the activities of military criminal
investigative organizations in investigations in which both may
be involved, together with the legislative and administrative
actions required to implement those proposals.

Comptroller General of the United States report on implementation by
the Armed Forces of recent statutory requirements on sexual
assault prevention and response in the military (sec. 537)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to study the Armed
Forces' implementation of statutory requirements on sexual
assault prevention and response enacted by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136) and
each succeeding National Defense Authorization Act through the
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232). The provision also would
require the Comptroller General to submit a report on this
study to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives. For each statutory requirement still
in force, the report would include an assessment of: (1)
Whether the requirement has been or is being implemented; (2)
The actions taken by the Armed Forces to determine whether the
actions taken pursuant to each requirement have proven
effective in meeting the intended objective; and (3) Any other
matters deemed appropriate. Finally, the provision would
require the Comptroller General to provide to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
not later than May 1, 2020, one or more briefings on the status
of the study, including any findings and recommendations
generated by the study to date.

Part II--Special Victims' Counsel Matters

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretaries of the military departments to provide Special
Victims' Counsel services to certain military and military-
affiliated civilian personnel who are the victims of an alleged
domestic violence offense, if a given secretary determines that
resources are available for this purpose without impairing
capacity to provide such services to the victims of alleged
sex-related offenses already authorized by law to receive them.
The provision would also authorize a given secretary to extend
the provision of Special Victims' Counsel services, under the
same terms and conditions, to certain civilian persons who are
the victims of an alleged sex-related offense or alleged
domestic violence offense but who are not currently authorized
to receive such services.

Other Special Victims' Counsel matters (sec. 542)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
legal assistance authorized to be provided by Special Victims'
Counsel to include legal consultation and assistance in
connection with an incident of retaliation, whether occurring
before, during, or after the conclusion of any criminal
proceedings.
The provision would also codify the Special Victims'
Counsel's duty to solicit the preference of a victim of an
alleged sex-related offense as to whether the offense should be
prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court with
jurisdiction over the offense and to advise appropriate
military prosecutors of the victim's preference.
Finally, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, the
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, detailing the manner-including
the additional personnel, resources, and training required-in
which the Department of Defense would extend eligibility for
Special Victims' Counsel services to certain military and
military-affiliated civilian victims of alleged domestic
violence offenses and to certain other civilian victims of an
alleged sex-related or domestic violence offenses, were
expansion of the program to be authorized in law.

Availability of Special Victims' Counsel at military installations
(sec. 543)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, in circumstances in which a Special Victims' Counsel is
not available at a military installation to provide services to
a member of the Armed Forces who requests such a Counsel, such
a Counsel be made available not later than 72 hours after the
member's request.
Further, the provision would require each of the
Secretaries of the military departments to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report assessing the feasibility and
advisability of establishing for each Special Victims' Counsel,
one or more civilian positions to support the Counsel and to
ensure continuity and the preservation of institutional
knowledge related to the provision of Special Victims' Counsel
services. The report would be submitted not later than 180 days
after enactment of this Act.

Training for Special Victims' Counsel on civilian criminal justice
matters in the States of the military installations to which
assigned (sec. 544)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, on the assignment of a Special Victims' Counsel
(including a Victim Legal Counsel of the Navy) to a military
installation in the United States, such Counsel will be
provided appropriate training on the law and policies governing
criminal justice matters in the State or States in which the
military installation is located. Such training would include:
(1) Victim rights; (2) Protective orders; (3) Prosecution of
criminal offenses; and (4) Sentencing for conviction of a
criminal offense.

Part III--Boards for Correction of Military Records and Discharge
Review Board Matters

Repeal of 15-year statute of limitations on motions or requests for
review of discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces (sec.
546)

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the 15-year statute of limitations on requests by or on behalf
of a former servicemember for review by a discharge review
board of the member's discharge or dismissal from the Armed
Forces.

Reduction in required number of members of discharge review boards
(sec. 547)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the
minimum number of members comprising a Discharge Review Board
from five to three.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
types of healthcare professionals whose provision of medical
evidence or diagnosis that a current or former servicemember is
or has experienced post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic
brain injury, or another mental health disorder must be
accorded consideration by a board for the correction of
military records or discharge review board in the matter of
such an applicant to include social workers with training on
mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress
disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other trauma as well as
psychologists, psychiatrists, or other specially-trained
physicians, as currently permitted in law.
Further, the provision would expand the types of health
care professionals authorized to render a medical advisory
opinion to a board for the correction of military records or to
be a member of a discharge review board considering the
application of such a servicemember to include social workers
with training on mental health issues connected with post-
traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other
trauma as well as psychologists, psychiatrists, or other
specially-trained physicians, as currently permitted in law.

Inclusion of intimate partner violence and spousal abuse among
supporting rationales for certain claims for corrections of
military records and discharge review (sec. 549)

The committee recommends a provision that would expand the
types of cases in which boards for the correction of military
records and discharge review boards must accord liberal
consideration to the evidence presented by the servicemember or
former servicemember in support of an application to the board
and/or grant expedited consideration of such an application to
include cases in which post-traumatic stress disorder or
traumatic brain injury related to sexual trauma, intimate
partner violence, spousal abuse, or combat serves as all or
part of the justification for the member or former member's
request for relief.

Advice and counsel of trauma experts in review by boards for correction
of military records and discharge review boards of certain
claims (sec. 550)

The committee recommends a provision that would require a
board for the correction of military records or a discharge
review board reviewing a case in which a current or former
servicemember's request for relief is based on post-traumatic
stress disorder or traumatic brain injury to seek advice and
counsel from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker
with training on mental health issues associated with post-
traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other
trauma.
The provision would further require that, if the member or
former member applicant claims sexual trauma, intimate partner
violence, or spousal abuse, the board seek advice and counsel
from an expert in trauma specific to sexual assault, intimate
partner violence, or spousal abuse.

Training of members of boards for correction of military records and
discharge review boards on sexual trauma, intimate partner
violence, spousal abuse, and related matters (sec. 551)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the curriculum of training for members of boards for the
correction of military records and discharge review boards
include training in sexual trauma, intimate partner violence,
spousal abuse, and the various responses of individuals to
trauma.
Further, the provision would require that, to the extent
practicable, any such training be uniform across the Armed
Forces.

Limitations and requirements in connection with separations for members
of the Armed Forces who suffer from mental health conditions in
connection with a sex-related, intimate partner violence-
related, or spousal abuse-related offense (sec. 552)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, before a member of the Armed Forces--who was the victim
of a sex-related, intimate partner violence-related, or spousal
abuse-related offense during the period of the member's
military service and who has a mental health condition not
amounting to a disability--is separated, discharged, or
released from military service based on that condition, the
diagnosis of the condition must be both corroborated by a
competent mental health care professional at or above the level
of the healthcare professional rendering the diagnosis and
endorsed by the Surgeon General of the military department
concerned.
This provision would apply to all separations, discharges,
and releases from the Armed Forces that occur on or after the
date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

Liberal consideration of evidence in certain claims by boards for the
correction of military records and discharge review boards
(sec. 553)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
military department boards for the correction of military
records and discharge review boards to review all claims
relating to a claimant's discharge or dismissal, or the
characterization of that discharge or dismissal, with liberal
consideration of all evidence and information presented by or
on behalf of the former servicemember.

Part IV--Other Military Justice Matters

Expansion of pre-referral matters reviewable by military judges and
military magistrates in the interest of efficiency in military
justice (sec. 555)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
article 30a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C.
830a) to require the President to prescribe regulations
governing proceedings related to an expanded set of matters
that would be authorized to be conducted by military judges and
military magistrates prior to the referral of court-martial
charges. Such expanded matters would include the pre-trial
confinement of, mental capacity of, or responsibility of an
accused and an accused's request for individual military
counsel.

Policies and procedures on registration at military installations of
civilian protective orders applicable to members of the Armed
Forces assigned to such installations and certain other
individuals (sec. 556)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish policies and procedures for
the registration at military installations of any civilian
protective order issued against: (1) A member of the Armed
Forces assigned to the installation; (2) A civilian employee
employed at the installation; or (3) A spouse or intimate
partner of a member of the Armed Forces on Active Duty assigned
to the installation or of a civilian employee employed at the
installation.
The provision would specify that the policies and
procedures established by the Secretary must include a
requirement for notice between and among the commander,
installation military law enforcement elements, and military
criminal investigative elements, whenever such a civilian
protective order is registered. The provision would require
that a failure to register a civilian protective order may not
be offered as justification for a lack of enforcement of the
order by military law enforcement and other personnel who have
knowledge of it.
Further, the provision would require that, as soon as
practicable after establishing the requisite policies and
procedures, the Secretary of Defense submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a letter describing those policies and
procedures and certifying that they have been implemented on
each military installation.

Increase in number of digital forensic examiners for the military
criminal investigation organizations (sec. 557)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
each of the Secretaries of the military departments to increase
the number of digital forensic examiners in each military
criminal investigative organization (MCIO) under that
secretary's jurisdiction by not fewer than 10 examiners above
the baseline number of digital forensic examiners in each MCIO
as of September 30, 2019.

Survey of members of the Armed Forces on their experiences with
military investigations and military justice (sec. 558)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a periodic survey--at least
once every 4 years but not more frequently than once every 2
years--to be known as the Military Investigation and Justice
Experience Survey, on the experience of members of the Armed
Forces with military investigations and military justice. Those
surveyed would include members of the Armed Forces who are
victims of an alleged sex-related offense and who made an
unrestricted report of that offense. Participants would be
surveyed on their experience with a Special Victims' Counsel
and, if charges in the victim's case were referred to court-
martial, with the prosecutor and the court-martial in general.

Public access to dockets, filings, and court records of courts-martial
and other records of trial of the military justice system (sec.
559)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 140a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C.
940a) to clarify that the Secretary of Defense must act in
coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security to apply
to the United States Coast Guard the uniform standards and
criteria governing the administration of the military justice
system, including those associated with: (1) The collection and
analysis of data; (2) Case processing and management; (3)
Timely, efficient, and accurate production and distribution of
records of trial; and (4) Facilitating public access to docket
information, filings, and records of court-martial proceedings.
The provision would also clarify that the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.
552a) would not apply to court-martial records of trial or to
docket information, filings, and records made accessible to the
public as prescribed. As practicable, public access to
personally identifiable information of minors and victims of
crime, including victims of sexual assault and domestic
violence, would be redacted, however. Finally, the provision
would affirm that its public access requirement would not apply
to court-martial docket information, filings, or records that
are classified, subject to a judicial protective order, or
ordered sealed.

Pilot programs on defense investigators in the military justice system
(sec. 560)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
each of the Secretaries of the military departments to execute
a pilot program to determine whether the presence and
utilization of defense investigators makes the military justice
system more fair and efficient and more effective in
determining the truth. Defense investigators engaged in each
secretary's pilot shall participate in the military justice
system in a manner similar to that in which defense
investigators participate in civilian criminal justice systems,
and the personnel and activities of pilot program defense
investigators should be uniform across all military
departments, to the extent practicable.
The provision would specify that a defense investigator
participating in the pilot may question a victim only upon a
request made through a Special Victims' Counsel or other
counsel of the victim or the trial counsel.
Further, the provision would require that, not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense submit to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a consolidated
report on the defense investigator pilot program with an
assessment of the feasibility and advisability of establishing
and maintaining defense investigators as a permanent element of
the military justice system.

Report on military justice system involving alternative authority for
determining whether to prefer or refer charges for felony
offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 561)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report setting forth the results of a study on the feasibility
and advisability of an alternative military justice system in
which determinations to prefer or refer charges for trial by
court-martial offenses for which the maximum punishment
includes confinement for more than one year under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (Chapter 47 of title 10, United States
Code) would be made by a judge advocate officer in a grade of
0-6 or higher, who has significant experience in criminal
litigation and is outside the chain of command of the member of
the Armed Forces who is the subject of the charges, rather than
by a commanding officer in the subject's chain of command. The
report would further assess the feasibility and advisability of
conducting a pilot program to assess any such alternative
military justice system and would be required to be submitted
not later than 300 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

Report on standardization among the military departments in collection
and presentation of information on matters within the military
justice system (sec. 562)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
describing plans to standardize across the military
departments, to the extent practicable, the collection and
presentation of matters within their military justice systems,
including information collected and maintained to facilitate
public access to court-martial docket information, filings, and
records and for other purposes set forth in article 140 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 940a). In
particular, the provision would require the Secretary to assess
the feasibility and advisability of establishing and
maintaining a single, Department of Defense-wide military
justice data management system. The report would be submitted
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

Report on establishment of guardian ad litem program for certain
military dependents who are victim or witness of offenses under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving abuse or
exploitation (sec. 563)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the feasibility and advisability of establishing a
guardian ad litem program for military dependents, under 12
years of age or who lack mental or other capacity, who are
victims or witnesses to an offense under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code)
that involves an element of abuse or exploitation. Should the
Secretary determine that establishment of such a program is
feasible and advisable, the report must include a description
of: (1) The administrative requirements, including resources,
required for the program; (2) Best practices, determined in
consultation with civilian experts on child advocacy; and (3)
Recommendations for legislative and administrative action
required to implement the program. The report would be required
to be submitted not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

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

Consecutive service of service obligation in connection with payment of
tuition for off-duty training or education for commissioned
officers of the Armed Forces with any other service obligations
(sec. 566)

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

Authority for detail of certain enlisted members of the Armed Forces as
students at law schools (sec. 567)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 2004 of title 10, United States Code, to permit the
detail of certain enlisted members, as well as officers as
authorized by current law, as students at law schools for a
period of training leading to a juris doctor degree. The
provision would limit the number of enlisted persons and
officers so detailed to 25 per year and would retain the
requirement for the competitive selection of detailees. To
qualify for such detail, an enlisted person must: (1) Have
served on Active Duty for not less than 4 and nor more than 8
years; (2) Be in the pay grade E-5, E-6, or E-7 as of the time
law school training begins; (3) Meet all requirements for
acceptance of a commission as a commissioned officer in the
Armed Forces; (4) Agree to accept transfer to be a judge
advocate, upon completion of law school; and (5) Agree to serve
on Active Duty for a period of 2 years for each year or partial
year of legal training received.

Connections of members retiring or separating from the Armed Forces
with community-based organizations and related entities (sec.
568)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to enter jointly
into a memorandum of understanding or other agreements with
State veterans agencies to transmit information from Department
of Defense form DD-2648 on individuals undergoing retirement,
discharge, or release from the Armed Forces, if elected by such
individuals, to provide or connect veterans to benefits or
services.

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

Part I--Defense Dependents' Education Matters

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$40.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance
program to local educational agencies impacted by enrollment of
dependent children of military members and DOD civilian
employees.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a),
using the formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398), for continuation of Department of Defense
assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible
dependents with severe disabilities. Subsection (b) of the
provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to use $5.0
million of the total amount authorized for payments to local
educational agencies with higher concentrations of military
children with severe disabilities at the Secretary's discretion
and without regard to the section 343 formula.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to conduct an assistance program to
educate up to five local national students per grade, per
academic year, on a space-available basis at the contractor-
operated schools on United States Army Garrison-Kwajalein
Atoll. Under this provision, the Secretary would be authorized
to provide: (1) Classroom instruction; (2) Extracurricular
activities; (3) Student meals; and (4) Transportation.

Part II--Military Family Readiness Matters

Two-year extension of authority for reimbursement for State licensure
and certification costs of spouses of members of the Armed
Forces arising from relocation to another State (sec. 576)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 476(p)(4) of title 37, United States Code, to extend
the authority for reimbursement of state licensure and
certification costs of military spouses arising from relocation
to another State to December 31, 2024, due to the delayed
implementation of this authority.

Improvement of occupational license portability for military spouses
through interstate compacts (sec. 577)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1784 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into a cooperative agreement with
the Council of State Governments to assist with the funding and
development of interstate compacts on licensed occupations.
The committee understands that the lack of portability of
employment licenses and credentials across State lines hinders
military spouse employment. According to the most recent survey
data, in 2018, 30 percent of military spouses were unemployed
and actively seeking work, and approximately 34 percent of
working military spouses require an occupational license for
their work. Occupational licenses and credentials often have
State-specific conditions and processes, causing lengthy
employment and re-employment delays and high costs for military
spouses moving between States.
Due to the delays and expense involved in re-licensure and
re-credentialing, many military spouses decide not to practice
their chosen professions. This becomes a financial and career
choice issue for military families, impacting servicemembers'
desire to stay in the military. This provision supports the
process of developing State-based solutions to these issues,
helping to alleviate the burdens military spouses face when
moving to new locations in the country and impediments to their
continued gainful employment.

Modification of responsibility of the Office of Special Needs for
individualized service plans for members of military families
with special needs (sec. 578)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subparagraph (F) of section 1781(c)(d)(4) of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Department of Defense to develop an
individualized service plan for military family members with
special needs when requested in connection to the completion of
a family needs assessment.

Clarifying technical amendment on direct hire authority for the
Department of Defense for childcare services providers for
Department child development centers (sec. 579)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
section 559(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) by including family
childcare coordinator services and school age childcare
coordinator services.

Pilot program on information sharing between Department of Defense and
designated relatives and friends of members of the Armed Forces
regarding the experiences and challenges of military service
(sec. 580)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of the
enactment of this Act, to enter into an agreement with the
American Red Cross to conduct a pilot program to encourage
members of the Armed Forces to designate up to 10 persons to
whom certain information regarding the military service of each
such member would be shared. The provision would require the
Secretary, within 2 years after the pilot program begins, to
administer a survey to persons who elected to receive
information under the program to receive feedback on the
quality of the information they received. Finally, the
provision would require the Secretary to submit a final report
on the pilot program to the congressional defense committees
within 3 years after the program begins.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require
that, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense provide to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a briefing on the various mechanisms by which
the Family Advocacy Programs of the military departments could
be used and enhanced to end domestic violence among members of
the Armed Forces and to support survivors of such violence and
their dependents.

Subtitle G--Decorations and Awards

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to John J. Duffy for acts
of valor in Vietnam (sec. 585)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the President, notwithstanding the time limitations specified
in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other
time limitation with respect to awarding certain medals to
members of the Armed Forces, to award the Medal of Honor under
section 3741 of such title to John J. Duffy for acts of valor
during the Vietnam War.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Chapter 57 of title 10, United States Code, to standardize the
requirement for honorable service for awards of medals,
crosses, bars, and associated emblems. Currently, the
requirements for honorable service for awards given in
recognition of distinguished acts vary among the military
departments, creating confusion and resulting in inequitable
treatment of servicemembers. This provision would establish a
single statutory standard that would provide parity in
treatment of servicemembers across the Department of Defense.

Authority to award or present a decoration not previously recommended
in a timely fashion following a review requested by Congress
(sec. 587)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1130 of title 10, United States Code, authorizing the
Secretary of Defense to present an award or decoration
following the favorable review of a proposal upon request of a
Member of Congress.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1563 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to make a
posthumous or honorary promotion following the submission to
the requesting Member of Congress and to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
of a determination as to the merits of approving the posthumous
or honorary promotion or appointment. The promotion or
appointment would not affect retired pay or other benefits
based upon the individual's military service.

Subtitle H--Other Matters

Military funeral honors matters (sec. 591)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1491(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretaries of the military departments to provide full
military honors for the funeral of a veteran who: (1) Is first
interred or inurned in Arlington National Cemetery after the
date of the enactment of this Act; (2) Was awarded the medal of
honor or the prisoner-of-war medal; and (3) Is not entitled to
full military honors by the grade of that veteran.
Additionally, the provision would require each commander of a
relevant military installation to maintain and carry out a plan
for the provision, upon request, of full military funeral
honors at funerals for veterans for whom funeral honors details
are authorized under section 1491 of title 10, United States
Code. The provision would prescribe elements of the required
plans, including the provision of a gun salute by either
appropriate personnel of the installation, reserve component
members, or members of veterans' organizations or other
organizations referred to in section 1491(b)(2) of such title.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, to require public
secondary educational institutions that maintain a Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit to permit membership in
the unit of home-schooled students residing in the area served
by the institution and who would otherwise be qualified for
membership in the unit if they were enrolled in the
institution.

Sense of Senate on the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (sec.
593)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps.

Items of Special Interest

Active-Duty Service Commitment for Personnel Graduating Cybersecurity
Courses

The committee remains concerned about recruitment and
retention of cybersecurity personnel. Of particular concern is
retention of cybersecurity personnel with significant
qualifications derived from the Department of Defense's
institutional training programs. Given the heavy demand for
these personnel from both the private sector and the public
sector outside of the uniformed services, the committee directs
that, not later than February 1, 2020, the Department complete
an analysis of the desirability of one or more Active-Duty
service obligations for these personnel. This analysis should
include an assessment of recruitment impacts. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional
defense committees on the results of the analysis by March 1,
2020.

Active-Duty service obligations for military service academy graduates

The committee notes that it has been over 20 years since
initial Active-Duty service obligations for service academy
graduates have been modified. Since that time, the real cost
per graduate has increased by nearly 20 percent. Recent studies
suggest service academy graduates have lower junior officer
retention rates then other officer commissioning sources.
Meanwhile, the increasingly technical nature of officer careers
results in new officers' spending less time at their first duty
stations due to lengthier, more demanding, initial skills
training courses.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to submit a report, no later than April 1, 2020,
that answers the following questions:
(1) How has the real cost per military service
academy graduate changed since 1996;
(2) How do service academy graduate retention rates
compare to those of other commissioning sources after
servicemembers' initial Active Duty service obligation
is complete;
(3) What effect would an increase in the initial
Active Duty service obligation for service academy
graduates have on academy application rates;
(4) How could service academies implement a policy
that awards preference for admission to a service
academy in exchange for an agreement to serve on Active
Duty longer than the required amount of time; and
(5) What other policies could the Services implement
to ensure an adequate return on investment for a
service academy graduate?

Adequacy of childcare workforce and capacity across the Department of
Defense

The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the Services are not adequately prioritizing
the childcare needs of military families. There is demand for
highly qualified childcare providers and increased child
development center (CDC) capacity across the DOD. With 7,000
military family children requiring but not receiving childcare,
the Services should further prioritize childcare to improve
military family readiness.
The committee understands that 68 percent of the childcare
need across the DOD is clustered in four geographic regions--
San Diego, the National Capital Region, Hawaii, and Norfolk. At
some of these locations, there is an insufficient workforce
available to staff CDCs. At other locations, there is a highly
qualified workforce available; however, local military
installations do not have the facility space to expand CDC
capacity.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the CDCs in these four geographic regions and to
submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than March
1, 2020, that includes the following: (1) Data on CDC
waitlists, workforce inadequacies, and facility capacities in
each region; (2) Specific locations where either CDC
construction or public-private partnerships with private sector
childcare providers would increase capacity; and (3) Monetary
and non-monetary incentives that could be utilized to recruit
and retain childcare providers at those CDCs.

Air battle manager accessions

The committee recognizes the important role that air battle
managers have in establishing command and control in
battlespace and ensuring that American and allied combat
aircraft find, identify, and destroy their targets. The
committee is concerned by the lack of air battle manager
accessions over the last 5 years compared to what is
recommended for a sustainable inventory.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a briefing on current
accession and retention rates for members of the Air Force
assigned to the Air Force Specialty Code of Air Battle Manager
by December 1, 2019. The briefing shall include: (1) A
description and assessment of plans of the Air Force to meet
Air Battle Manager requirements as provided by Headquarters of
the Air Force guidance letters; and (2) A comparison of
aviation retention bonus take rates for pilots versus air
battle managers and an explanation of how current air battle
manager retention bonus amounts were determined.

Assessment and report on expanding the eligibility for the My Career
Advancement Account program

The committee shares the Department of Defense's (DOD)
commitment to military family readiness, part of which is
improving military spouse education and employment
opportunities. In the 2018 Blue Star Families Military Family
Lifestyle Survey, 30 percent of military spouses reported they
were unemployed and actively seeking work, while 56 percent of
employed military spouses stated they were underemployed. When
compared to the current national unemployment rate of 3.8
percent, it is clear military spouses experience greater
impediments when seeking full-time employment than their
civilian counterparts.
The My Career Advancement Account (MyCAA) program offers
eligible military spouses, who are pursuing licenses,
certifications, or associate's degrees in portable career
fields, financial assistance toward completing their studies.
The program is currently open to spouses of certain junior
servicemembers to jump-start their career paths. The committee
was encouraged to see the RAND Corporation's study on the MyCAA
program, ``An Early Evaluation of the My Career Advancement
Account Scholarship for Military Spouses,'' which found: (1)
MyCAA program users were more likely to find employment; (2)
MyCAA scholarships reach the intended population; and (3) MyCAA
usage positively affects servicemember retention.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct an assessment and to report on the feasibility and
advisability of expanding the MyCAA program. The assessment
should include: (1) Analysis of a tailored expansion of program
eligibility for military spouses, to include but not be limited
to extending MyCAA financial assistance through the completion
of users' educational programs; (2) Analysis on expanding
scholarship eligibility to include vocational schools,
professional licensure, and medical field clinical supervision
hours; (3) Costs associated with categories identified for
potential expansion; (4) Impact on the program if eligibility
is expanded; (5) Suggestions for improved data collection, to
include but not be limited to data on program completion after
a military spouse transitions out of the eligibility window;
and (6) A determination on whether or not expansion is feasible
and advisable. The Secretary of Defense shall submit the report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives no later than March 1, 2020.

Basic training athletic shoe variant analysis for new recruits

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) required the
Services to provide American-made athletic shoes at no cost to
recruits to provide higher quality footwear and to reduce
injuries during basic training. In order to accommodate
different sizes and running styles, the Defense Logistics
Agency awarded contracts for three different variants of
athletic shoes. The committee is aware, however, that the
Services vary on how they conduct assessments to determine the
best shoe variant for each recruit. Therefore, the committee
directs the Services to brief the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
January 1, 2020, on the analysis or assessment provided to new
recruits to determine the most appropriate shoe variant for
them. This briefing shall include an assessment of whether
exchange store retail clerks are trained to conduct a basic
foot and gait analysis of recruits and to recommend the best
shoe variant for recruits.

Briefing on Staff Judge Advocates' trial experience

The committee notes that Article 34 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 834) requires that, before referral
of charges and specifications to a general court-martial, the
general court-martial convening authority must submit the
matter to his or her staff judge advocate. The staff judge
advocate is required to provide written advice to the convening
authority, including a recommendation as to disposition of the
charges and specifications.
The committee perceives that in order to provide the best
advice on these matters, it is important that a staff judge
advocate possess significant knowledge of and experience in the
military justice system.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the
military departments to brief the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than
December 6, 2019, on the military justice experience required
for assignment as a staff judge advocate in their respective
services. As to the judge advocates assigned as a staff judge
advocate in the military service(s) under the jurisdiction of
such secretary at any time over the 5 years preceding the date
of the enactment of this Act, the report shall include the
average time assigned to perform duties as a trial counsel,
defense counsel, chief of military justice, chief of defense
services, or military judge and to other duties that
contributed to the breadth and depth of the military justice
knowledge and experience of the officer.

Childcare Parity

The committee is concerned about the lack of availability
of childcare for Active-Duty servicemembers on military
installations and the Services' implementation of childcare
eligibility priority lists, which dictate the order in which
children are allocated available spaces in Department of
Defense (DOD) childcare facilities. In those facilities, over
3,500 Active-Duty families appear on waiting lists for
childcare, especially infant care. In DOD Instruction 6060.02,
the Department has established a priority list to ensure that
children of Active-Duty servicemembers receive childcare before
other eligible beneficiary categories. However, the children of
DOD civilian employees often fill slots in DOD childcare
facilities, even as Active-Duty servicemembers find themselves
on waiting lists for many months. Additionally, DOD's priority
list does not sufficiently address the childcare needs of
Active-Duty servicemembers who may be single, unmarried,
separated, or divorced parents.
The committee is aware that each of the Services treats
single, unmarried, separated, or divorced parents differently
regarding their priority for childcare. The committee believes
that military family stability is an important pillar of
military family readiness. Therefore, the committee strongly
encourages the Department to: (1) Standardize the childcare
eligibility policies of the Services to ensure that single,
unmarried, separated, or divorced servicemembers receive the
same opportunities as married servicemembers for childcare,
regardless of the individual servicemember's residency or
geographic location; and (2) Ensure the Department prioritizes
childcare for Active-Duty servicemembers over the childcare
needs of DOD civilians. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the committee, no later than
February 1, 2020, on changes the DOD will make to ensure equity
in the delivery of its childcare benefits.

Command climate assessment in officer and enlisted appraisal reports

Section 508 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) requires that that the performance appraisals of a
commanding officer indicate the extent to which the commanding
officer has or has not established a command climate in which
allegations of sexual assault are properly managed and fairly
evaluated and the extent to which a victim of criminal
activity, including sexual assault, can report the criminal
activity without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and
group pressure from other members of the command. The committee
believes that these are not ``check-the-block'' requirements.
They should be given serious consideration when evaluating
these commanding officers and accurately reflected in
performance appraisals.
The committee recognizes that the command climate of an
organization is greatly influenced by officer and enlisted
leadership of that organization. Accordingly, the committee
encourages the Secretaries of the military departments to
require that all officer and enlisted evaluations include a
meaningful assessment of the rated officer or enlisted member's
contribution to a positive command climate.

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

The committee recognizes the importance of the mission of
the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, authorized
in section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public
Law 89-329), to encourage more Americans to pursue careers
serving their communities in critical jobs-including careers in
military service and civilian careers at the Department of
Defense. The committee further recognizes that a well-
administered PSLF program allows members of the uniformed
services with student loans to serve their country without
spending decades repaying federal student loan debt and
contributes to the successful recruitment and retention of
highly qualified and educated recruits by eliminating a barrier
to entry to military or civilian service. For the Services,
this broadens the supply of eligible recruits, which, in the
long term, can reduce recruiting and retention costs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, not later
than June 30, 2020, a report assessing the effectiveness of the
PSLF program at promoting military readiness and the effect of
the PSLF program on military and civilian recruitment. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to make any recommendations to strengthen military
readiness and military and civilian recruitment the Comptroller
General deems appropriate to the Congress and to the Secretary
of Education regarding the implementation of the PSLF program.

Concern over hunger and food security in military families

Since 2000, the Congress has worked to ensure that military
families, particularly those of lower ranking enlisted
servicemembers, do not have to endure the painful reality of
food insecurity. Various programs at the Federal, State, and
Department of Defense levels have attempted to address this
issue, yet the committee continues to hear reports that
problems remain.
The committee notes that the Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation, underway and expected to report next year, is
assessing the adequacy of military compensation in order to
obtain better demographic fidelity about the usage of benefits
under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by
servicemembers. The committee urges the Department to give this
issue a thorough review and to continue to work collaboratively
with the Congress to further study the root causes of food
insecurity and hunger in military families and develop lasting
solutions in order to protect the families of those who protect
the Nation.

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

The benefits provided by the Montgomery G.I. Bill and
Department of Defense-funded tuition assistance are valuable
incentives that can help the military meet its recruiting and
retention goals by providing financial means for servicemembers
to complete college courses. The committee is aware that due to
a Department of Defense (DOD) policy change to DOD Instruction
1322.25 in July 2014, reserve component members receiving
tuition assistance are no longer allowed to receive Montgomery
G.I. Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) benefits for the same
college course. The committee is aware that tuition assistance
is paid directly to schools and is authorized only for tuition
while the MGIB-SR benefits are paid directly to servicemembers
and may be used to cover education-related costs such as books,
fees, and housing. Therefore, the committee encourages the DOD
to re-evaluate this policy and strongly consider reinstating
simultaneous use of tuition assistance and MGIB-SR for reserve
component members.

Department of Defense cooperation with United States Interagency
Council on Homelessness

The committee is aware that the Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies (THUD) of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in the
Senate report accompanying S. 2844 (S. Rept. 114-243) of the
THUD Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2017, required that
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)
work with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to evaluate and report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives on
how the process of becoming a veteran can be improved to
minimize veteran homelessness. The committee recently became
aware that DOD's cooperation with the USICH in this regard may
have partially contributed to an unsatisfactory report.
The committee believes that eliminating veteran
homelessness must be a national effort that crosses executive
agency jurisdictions. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that the DOD works with the USICH to report
by October 1, 2019, to the Subcommittee on THUD and the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives on DOD's progress in identifying transitioning
servicemembers who may not have viable post-transition housing
plans and on steps taken to ensure that each of those
servicemembers receives a useful referral to the VA or the
Department of Labor (DOL). Additionally, the committee directs
the DOD to provide to USICH the following data for fiscal year
2018 and 2019:
(1) The number and percentage of transitioning
servicemembers evaluated regarding their post-
transition housing plan;
(2) The number and percentage of transitioning
servicemembers identified as not having a viable post-
transition housing plan;
(3) The number and percentage of transitioning
servicemembers identified as not having a viable post-
transition housing plan and referred to the appropriate
VA liaison; and
(4) The number and percentage of transitioning
servicemembers who are evaluated as not having a viable
post-transition housing plan and referred to the
appropriate DOL Liaison.
Further, the committee directs the Secretary to provide
data records to the VA and DOL that will enable those agencies
to track actions and report outcomes associated with such
referrals.

Department of Defense credentialing

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense
to integrate an open registry of credentials and descriptive
schema into existing Department of Defense (DOD) credentialing
databases. The committee believes that the Department should
provide better metrics and data on quality indicators and
outcomes to include: (1) The extent to which credentials will
improve a veteran's ability to gain employment; (2) Which
credentials are transferable across state lines; and (3)
Locations and regions where certain credentials are in demand.
Finally, the committee believes that these data could inform
which programs are eligible for education benefits administered
by the DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Development of strategic basing factors to support military families

The committee notes that on February 23, 2018, the
Secretaries of the military departments sent a memorandum to
the National Governors Association, expressing their intent to
consider the quality of education in local schools and
reciprocity of professional licensure for military spouses in
future basing or mission alternative decisions. The committee
applauds the Services for their efforts to address the needs of
military families. Additionally, the committee salutes the
Department of the Air Force for taking the lead in developing
strategic basing factors to support military families while
engaging community stakeholders for feedback relevant to K-12
education and military spouse license reciprocity. The
committee encourages the Departments of the Army and Navy to
work collaboratively with the Air Force on strategic basing
factors to ensure military children receive a high quality
education and to relieve military spouses of the burdens that
come with re-licensure and re-credentialing with every
permanent change of station move.

Digital engineering as a core competency of the Armed Forces

The committee notes that, in June 2018, the Under Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering released a Digital
Engineering Strategy that seeks to incorporate the use of
digital computing, analytical capabilities, and new
technologies to conduct engineering in more integrated model-
based environments. The Department of Defense correctly notes
that defense programs are becoming increasingly complex, as
evidenced by the complex and continuously changing software and
electronics needed to operate nearly every major platform
fielded by the military. The responsibility to understand,
manage, and use these complex systems resides not just with the
Department's scientists and laboratories but is increasingly
relevant to personnel on the battlefield and in every facet of
military service. Accordingly, the committee believes that, as
a general matter, the Department and the Services should
consider promoting and maintaining digital engineering as a
core competency of the Armed Forces and increasing the digital
and technical skills of all servicemembers. The committee
believes that the Department should consider the development,
maintenance, and integration of increased capability among all
members of the Armed Forces, in every branch and occupational
specialty, in digital engineering and related digital
competencies (including, but not limited to, data science,
machine learning, software engineering, software product
management, and user experience design). This effort should
include the development and maintenance of training, education,
talent management, incentives, and promotion policies in
support of members at all levels.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to enter into an arrangement with an independent research
organization or study board for an identification of policy
options and cost-benefit analysis of these options to
strengthen digital engineering and related capabilities of the
DOD civilian and military workforces. The report shall be
delivered to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than July 1, 2020.

Duty to intervene

The committee notes that Department of Defense annual
reports on sexual assault in the military have consistently
concluded that sexual assaults are more likely to occur in
units with a command climate that tolerates sexual harassment.
The fiscal year 2018 report found that ``women who experienced
sexual harassment were at 3 times greater risk for sexual
assault than average'' and men who experienced sexual
harassment were at 12 times greater risk for sexual assault
than average.
Current bystander intervention programs do not appear to be
effective in reducing tolerance for sexual harassment and
sexual assaults. Servicemember bystanders should have a duty to
intervene when they observe conduct that constitutes sexual
misconduct, including sexual harassment and sexual assault, or
retaliation for reporting harassment and assault.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than
December 6, 2019, on the feasibility of establishing a legally
enforceable duty to intervene when a servicemember witnesses
sexual misconduct.

Encouraging victims of domestic violence and sex-related offenses to
secure military and civilian protection orders

The committee believes that a Military Protection Order
(MPO) and a Civilian Protection Order (CPO), taken together,
afford a victim of domestic violence or a sex-related offense
the most comprehensive protection available under law from
further abuse, assault, or harm.
Further, the committee is aware that Federal law requires
military commanders and installation law enforcement personnel
to take all reasonable measures necessary to ensure that a CPO
is given full force and effect on all Department of Defense
(DOD) installations. But in order to enforce a CPO involving a
military servicemember or other affiliated person, commanders,
military law enforcement officers, and Family Advocacy Program
personnel must know that such an order exists. Although DOD
policy provides military commanders the option to establish
procedures for registering CPOs on a DOD installation, few
commanders have done so.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Family Advocacy
Program, Special Victims' Counsel Program, and other victim
advocate programs of the DOD to provide victims in their care
with advice and assistance in obtaining both an MPO and a CPO,
as expeditiously as possible. In addition, the committee
encourages all military commanders to establish procedures for
registering and sharing CPOs with all appropriate installation
personnel and programs, with a view toward ensuring victim
safety through consistent, across-the-board awareness and
enforcement of any such protective order.

Enlistment and accession testing and standards for non-native English
speaking recruits

The committee is concerned about the shrinking pool of
qualified recruits interested in military service. The all-
volunteer force is now over 45 years old, and, while it has
served the Nation well, its limits are being tested after 17
years of war. The challenge is most acute in military service
recruitment efforts. The Services continue to pay more each
year for fewer Active-Duty servicemembers. In November 2013,
the Chief of Staff of the Army testified that the cost of an
Army soldier had doubled since 2001 and would double again by
2025. While the percentage of the Department of Defense's total
budget spent on military personnel has remained generally
steady since 1980, at roughly one third, the cost of military
personnel, in real dollars, has soared. It buys far less today
than it did then. In 1980, the active component end strength of
the Armed Forces was 2.1 million. The Department's request for
fiscal year 2020, the largest in history in budgetary terms,
included 1.33 million Active-Duty servicemembers. The Army in
particular has struggled, and it will miss its 2019 authorized
strength by 8,000 soldiers. All of this results from having to
pay more to attract qualified recruits in an ever shrinking
pool of candidates. Portending a different, perhaps more
serious, problem, those who do join are increasingly culled
from a homogeneous pool of military-connected families that are
not representative of the Nation as a whole. It is clear to the
committee that money alone cannot solve this issue and that the
Nation, as a matter of national security, must rethink how and
who it recruits.
The committee recently met with a number of the Army's top
recruiters to hear about their experiences and challenges in
recruiting today and to explore what we might do differently.
Among many topics discussed, the Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) was a particular source of
frustration. While the ASVAB identifies qualified recruits, it
leaves many would-be highly qualified recruits behind,
specifically those who do not speak English as a native
language. Due to the timed nature of the test and nuances of
language, many non-native English speakers do not pass, even
though their academic records in American high schools are
strong.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the effectiveness of current enlistment testing
practices, including the ASVAB, in identifying high-potential
recruits for military service, specifically among the non-
native English speaking population of the United States
eligible to enlist, in light of evolving standards and methods
in civilian education of measuring mental ability and academic
potential. This review should analyze and take into account
methods of measuring academic potential being used across local
school districts in the United States to ensure that current
testing methodologies used by the Department and the Services
comport with best practices in the field and serve to identify
to the fullest range possible those individuals who are likely
to succeed in their terms of military service. The review shall
include a survey of the latest research on academic achievement
of non-native English speakers. The Department shall report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives by no later than April 1, 2020, on the results
of this review. The Secretary may utilize the services of
outside, independent organizations, including federally funded
research and development centers, as the Secretary determines
appropriate, to access the expertise and research necessary to
conduct this review.

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

The committee commends the Department of Defense Federal
Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) for its initiatives to counter
the myth that absentee ballots cast by military members and
their eligible family members are considered for tabulation and
counted only in close elections. FVAP, in conjunction with the
United States Postal Service, piloted two-way military ballot
tracking for overseas military members during the 2016 general
election. The Military Ballot Tracking Pilot (MBTP) allowed
members of the military to track their ballots in the same way
that consumers track commercial packages. The MBTP was
successful--85 to 90 percent of all ballots were successfully
delivered with end-to-end tracking--and surveys of
servicemembers who voted with absentee ballots indicated
significant satisfaction with being able to track their
ballots. The committee believes that servicemembers and their
families should be able to track their ballots from the time of
mailing until they are received by election officials. The
continuation of the MBTP will help to improve customer service
and will facilitate the acquisition of valuable data that can
be used to assess the overall reliability of military mail.
The committee encourages the FVAP to continue and expand
the MBTP to additional military voters and their eligible
family members. The committee directs the Director, FVAP, to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration, and the House Committee on Administration, not
later than January 29, 2021, a report on the expanded MBTP.
This report shall include: (1) The scope and cost of the
expanded program; (2) The projected cost of extending this
program to all eligible voters under the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (Public Law 99-410); (3) The
organizations that provided the FVAP substantial support in
conducting the pilot, a description of the support, and costs
associated with that support; and (4) Recommendations on the
process and steps necessary to expand the program to all
eligible overseas members and their families. The committee
also directs the Director, FVAP, to provide an interim briefing
to the committees listed not later than February 3, 2020.

Expansion of the Military Spouse Employment Partnership across the
Department of Defense

The Military Spouse Employment Partnership (MSEP), a
program established by the Department of Defense (DOD), creates
a strong network for military spouses and industry, providing
companies and agencies with direct access to military spouses
seeking career opportunities. The MSEP currently has more than
390 industry and government partners that have hired over
130,000 military spouses. However, the committee notes that
only five DOD agencies partner with the MSEP to post employment
opportunities for military spouses online-the Defense
Commissary Agency, Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency,
Department of Defense Education Activity, Commander, Navy
Installations Command-NAF, and Department of the Air Force. The
committee recognizes the unique challenges military spouses
face to maintain suitable employment with frequent moves
between duty stations. Therefore, the committee encourages the
DOD to expand MSEP Department-wide and to: (1) Streamline
access for hiring managers across the Department to improve
utilization and communication about military spouse hiring; (2)
Ensure military spouses are made aware of all potential
employment opportunities available to them as they undergo
moves between duty stations; and (3) Ensure DOD prioritizes the
training of hiring managers in military spouse hiring
authorities and preferences.

Expedited naturalization of non-citizen servicemembers

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
provides non-citizen servicemembers an expedited path to
naturalization upon: (1) Successful completion of basic
training; (2) Completion of 180 consecutive days of Active-Duty
service, including service in basic training; and (3) Honorable
characterization of their military service. Section 530 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91) requires the Secretary of Defense to ensure that
members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, who are
lawful permanent residents, are informed of the availability of
and process for naturalization through service in the military
and that resources are available to assist qualified members in
applying for naturalization. The committee encourages the
Secretaries of the military departments to establish procedures
to identify all non-citizen servicemembers, who will be
eligible for expedited naturalization upon fulfillment of the
requirements discussed above, to take affirmative action to
inform these servicemembers of their eligibility to apply for
citizenship upon fulfillment of these requirements and to
assist such servicemembers in applying for and obtaining
citizenship, to the maximum extent practicable.

Extended paid family leave for secondary caregivers

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) increased the
maximum allowed leave for secondary caregivers of newborn
infants from 10 to 21 days and that the military's expanded
primary caregiver parental leave program went into effect in
March 2018. The committee notes that the Services continue to
differ in how they implement this new policy. Now that the
policy has been in effect for more than 1 year, the committee
directs the Services to brief the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
May 1, 2020, on the impact that this policy change has had in
the following areas: recruitment; retention; readiness; health
and family wellness; and morale.

Family Child Care home expansion

For many years, Family Child Care (FCC) homes have been an
essential element of the military childcare system. Operated by
military spouses in on-base housing, FCC homes relieve demand
for care at installation child development centers (CDCs),
provide a reliable childcare option for families who prefer in-
home care or need flexible scheduling, and offer employment
opportunities for military spouses. FCC providers receive
rigorous training through the Department of Defense (DOD), must
be licensed, and must pass background checks and regular
inspections.
Unfortunately, the number of FCC homes in operation has
declined over time. Currently, there are fewer than 1,000 homes
in the program. With the demand for childcare continuing to
increase, the DOD is educating military families on all of the
options available to them and encouraging families to enroll
their children in FCC homes. The DOD also encourages military
spouses to consider enrolling their homes in the FCC program,
as an employment opportunity, while expanding childcare
capacity on an installation.
The committee has heard reports, however, of military
spouses operating unlicensed childcare centers from their on-
base homes. These unlicensed childcare centers may not adhere
to the strict standards required of CDCs and licensed FCC
homes, putting the health and safety of military children at
risk. When faced with long waiting lists at CDCs and few
affordable options off base, some families feel that their only
option is an unlicensed care provider.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to produce data on the number of unlicensed childcare centers
in military homes and to determine the barriers preventing
childcare providers from entering the FCC program. The
Department shall brief the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives on these data and
barriers no later than March 1, 2020.

Full time support manpower study

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
manpower study of the full time support requirements of the
Department of Defense to determine the proper allocation of
military technicians (dual status), Active Guard and Reserve
personnel, and Federal civilian employees employed under title
5, United States Code, under the supervision of State Adjutants
General. The Secretary shall submit the results of this review
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives by no later than April 1, 2021.

Military childcare system study on outcomes for children and parents

The committee recognizes the importance of providing
childcare services to servicemembers. Data on the positive
effects of the Department of Defense's childcare program on
children and servicemembers provide important information on
the program's best practices and the benefits of the program's
focus on affordability, quality, and access. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, not later than January 1,
2023, a report with an assessment of the positive effects of
the Department's childcare program on children, servicemembers,
and military families. The assessment shall include: (1) A
comparison to services provided in the private sector; (2) An
evaluation of children's developmental outcomes, school
readiness, and performance in school; (3) Parental outcomes
such as productivity and military family engagement; (4) An
examination of how affordability, access, quality, and
childcare workforce training and requirements contribute to the
program's success; and (5) An assessment as to how the
Department's investments in these areas promote military
readiness.

Rapidly incorporating data tools to enhance military recruiting

The committee notes that while the Services, and in
particular the Army, are making progress in effective
marketing, advertising, and recruiting investments, much more
remains to be done. One major part of solving recruiting
shortfalls is the integration of commercial data analytics into
existing military marketing and advertising practices. The
committee understands that the Under Secretary of the Army is
presently evaluating such commercial tools, commends this
initiative, and directs the Army and the other services to move
as expeditiously as is feasible to incorporate these
capabilities into the Services' suite of marketing,
advertising, and recruitment tools while taking steps necessary
to ensure that such data analytics tools are free of gender or
racial bias.

Reliability and completeness of information in inspector general case
management systems

Department of Defense (DOD) component inspectors general
serve a critical role by providing an independent and impartial
channel outside of the chain of command through which
servicemembers can report fraud, waste, abuse, and other
misconduct. The committee believes that it is important that
all matters reported to the DOD Office of Inspector General and
DOD component inspectors general and investigated, whether by
an inspector general or the command, are properly documented
and retained in accordance with records retention policies
applicable to inspector general case management systems,
regardless of the subject's rank and the disposition of the
matter and even when the matter might also be documented in a
non-inspector general system of records.
This committee and the DOD must have confidence in the
integrity, reliability, and completeness of the data in the DOD
component inspector general case management systems. The DOD
Office of Inspector General and DOD component inspector general
case management systems are searched in support of personnel
actions that require Presidential, Secretary of Defense, and
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness approval
and Senate confirmation. These systems are also searched for
service promotion boards and professional military education
boards, and their data are screened for command and appointment
to other sensitive positions, including inspectors general,
recruiters, and sexual assault response coordinators.
Inspector general case management systems are also
important as a comprehensive source for assessing multiple
complaints against the same subject, even if each individual
complaint against a subject is not substantiated. The
completeness and reliability of these databases are also
important to analyses of trends in misconduct across the
Department.
Therefore, the committee believes that, at a minimum, the
DOD Inspector General and DOD component inspector general case
management systems should include: (1) The subject's name in
the corresponding subject data field; (2) The allegation(s) in
the corresponding allegation data field; (3) Whether the
allegation(s) are substantiated or not substantiated; and (4)
Corrective action(s) taken in the corresponding corrective
action data field.

Reserve Officers' Training Corps Scholarship Program and Recruiting of
Future Cyber Officers

Section 1649 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) amended chapter 112 of
title 10, United States Code, to establish the Department of
Defense Cyber Scholarship Program. The committee believes that
the Cyber Scholarship program may help alleviate the challenges
that the Department of Defense is experiencing in recruiting
and retaining cybersecurity personnel. The committee also
believes that Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) programs
at universities that offer degrees in cyber studies and related
fields provide an opportunity to leverage and expand
partnerships to assist in closing the gap of trained cyber
warriors in the military. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services
Committee by February 1, 2020, on potential means to leverage
the ROTC scholarship program to help alleviate the challenges
that the Department is experiencing in recruiting and retaining
cybersecurity personnel.

Review of support services provided to military servicemembers assigned
to designated remote bases

The committee has received concerning anecdotal reports
about the Department of Defense's (DOD) inconsistent approach
to designating installations as remote or isolated and the
implications for support services available at such
installations. The committee notes that remote or isolated
installations often have reduced medical and Morale, Welfare,
and Recreation (MWR) services. While servicemembers and
dependents appear to be screened before being assigned to these
installations, it is unclear whether the support services
available are sufficient to meet their needs, particularly
regarding medical services. It also remains unclear whether the
DOD has standard metrics for designating installations as
``remote'' and ensuring that resources are distributed evenly
across such installations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a study assessing the process by
which the DOD designates installations as ``remote'' or
``isolated'' and the process for ensuring the sufficiency of
support services provided at those installations. The study
shall review: (1) DOD's process for defining remote and
isolated installations; (2) DOD's process for defining the type
and level of support services, such as medical, MWR,
educational, housing, and childcare, at such installations; (3)
How those support services provided at such installations
differ, if at all, across the Services; and (4) DOD's process
for assessing the sufficiency of support services at such
locations, including the extent to which the DOD measures the
needs of the assigned military population and their dependents
and assesses the capabilities of the local community to meet
those needs. The Comptroller General shall brief, at a minimum,
preliminary observations from the study no later than February
28, 2020, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.

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

The committee recognizes the importance of providing
survivors of sexual assault an opportunity to provide a full
and complete description of the impact of the assault on the
survivor during court-martial sentencing hearings related to
the offense. The committee is concerned by reports that that
some military judges have interpreted Rule for Courts-Martial
(RCM) 1001A too narrowly, limiting what survivors are permitted
to say during sentencing hearings in ways that do not fully
inform the court of the impact of the crime on the survivor.
Therefore, the committee urges military judges to provide
great deference to victims of crimes who exercise their right
to be heard under RCM 1001A at sentencing hearings. Military
judges should also be lenient in permitting other witnesses to
testify about the impact of the crime under RCM 1001.

Safe to Report policy

One of the most significant and recurring barriers to the
reporting of sexual assaults is assault victims' concern about
being punished for collateral misconduct. The committee
commends the Safe to Report policy of the United States Air
Force Academy (USAFA). This policy requires commanders to
consider each instance of collateral misconduct by a victim of
sexual assault on a case-by-case basis. In addition to the
seriousness of the collateral misconduct, a commander is
required to consider whether he or she would have been aware of
the collateral misconduct had the victim not reported the
assault. In the absence of aggravating circumstances, USAFA
cadets who report a sexual assault are not punished for
violations of Air Force Cadet Wing instructions involving
alcohol use or possession, consensual intimate behavior in the
cadet area, unprofessional relationships/fraternization among
cadets, or exceeding cadet-area limits. The Safe to Report
policy encourages common-sense limits on punishing victims of
sexual assault--all in an effort to encourage victims to report
assaults so that the Academy can address that significantly
more serious criminal misconduct. The committee encourages the
Secretaries of the military departments to consider whether
collateral misconduct policies akin to USAFA's Safe to Report
policy could be adapted to other organizations and contexts.

Special Victims' Counsel legal consultation and assistance to victims
subject to retaliation

The Special Victims' Counsel (SVC) and Victims' Legal
Counsel (VLC) play critical roles in the military justice
system, providing survivors of alleged sex-related offenses
with legal representation and advocacy, legal consultation and
assistance, and support. The offense of retaliation, as
established in section 932 of title 10, United States Code, and
in the laws and cases governing equal employment opportunity
and non-discrimination, is not expressly cited in section 1044a
of title 10, United States Code, which enumerates the scope of
services that an SVC or VLC is authorized to provide. While
SVCs and VLCs will generally assist victims who are subject to
incidents of retaliation, the committee is aware that victims
may not be aware that this additional support is available,
particularly when the retaliatory acts occur after the
conclusion of any military justice proceedings associated with
the sex-related offense.
Therefore, the committee recommends the expansion of the
guiding principles and regulations applicable to the SVC/VLC
programs to require an SVC/VLC to inform his or her client of
the availability of legal consultation and assistance in
connection with any incident of retaliation to which the victim
may be subject, including incidents that occur after any
military justice proceedings in regard to a sex-related offense
have concluded.

Support for Air Force Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Flight
Academy

As the United States confronts a shortage of pilots and
aviation professionals, both the military and the private
sector must look to increase awareness and enthusiasm for
aviation-related careers among today's youth. The committee
supports the Air Force's attempts to boost interest in aviation
professions through its Air Force Junior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (ROTC) Flight Academy program.
First year results of the program are promising. 85 percent
of participants completed the required curriculum and obtained
a private pilot's license. Additionally, 20 participants are
now enrolled in university ROTC programs and on a path to
earning commissions as Air Force officers. More than 33 percent
of participants come from historically underrepresented groups
in the aviation community.
The committee encourages the Air Force to expand this
important program. As pilot shortages continue to grow in the
other services, this program should serve as a model to
motivate young Americans to pursue careers in military
aviation.

Telework option for military spouses in Department of Defense contracts

The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD)
contracts do not normally allow for offsite work options like
telework, which hinders the entire workforce and notably,
military spouses. If a military spouse employed by a DOD
contractor moves with their servicemember on government orders,
regardless of their employment performance, they are typically
unable to continue working for a DOD contractor in a remote
capacity due to standard contract requirements written by the
DOD.
Telework has expanded across the Federal government because
it improves employee morale, enhances work-life balance for
employees, improves recruiting and retention of the best and
brightest workforce, and maximizes organizational productivity.
DOD policy, Department of Defense Instruction 1035.01, states
that ``telework shall be: Used to help create employment and
return-to-work opportunities for veterans, people with
disabilities, and spouses of Service members and employees
being relocated.'' Meanwhile, telework is performed routinely
in the private sector to the benefit of companies and employees
alike.
Military families continually make sacrifices to support
the missions of servicemembers and should not be further
disadvantaged in employment due to an outdated contract
requirement for onsite work. Military spouses have an
unemployment rate of 30 percent, more than 7 times the
unemployment rate for the United States as a whole. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the
inclusion of an offsite work option in DOD contracts to
encourage continuity of employment for workforces that often
include military spouses and to brief the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the
review no later than March 1, 2020.

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

The committee is aware that a report of investigation
documenting an allegation of reprisal substantiated by an
inspector general must be referred to the Secretary of Homeland
Security or the Secretary of the military department concerned
for review and appropriate action. Although applicable law
affords the secretary concerned the authority to determine that
corrective or disciplinary action against the perpetrator is
not warranted in a particular case, the law does not permit the
secretary's determination that an act of reprisal did not
occur, contrary to the inspector general's finding. The law
further prescribes strict timelines within which the receiving
secretary must review the report of investigation, determine
whether or not corrective or disciplinary action is warranted,
and advise others of that determination, including the
Secretary of Defense, the relevant inspector general, and the
complainant in the case.
The committee is aware of numerous reprisal cases in which
a secretary's response to the relevant inspector general has
been delayed by months or years. Furthermore, in some of those
late cases, the secretary's response advised that no corrective
or disciplinary action had been taken against the perpetrator
because of a belief that the inspector general's substantiation
determination was erroneous or improper.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Inspector General and the Inspector General of the Department
of Homeland Security, as applicable, to include in their
semiannual reports to the Congress a listing of the
substantiated reprisal cases in which: (1) More than 180 days
have elapsed since the relevant inspector general provided the
report of investigation to the secretary concerned, without
response; (2) More than 180 days have elapsed between the date
on which the relevant inspector general provided the report of
investigation to the secretary concerned and the date on which
the secretary's response was received by the inspector general;
and (3) the secretary's response takes issue with the inspector
general's determination that an act of reprisal occurred. Each
listing shall include: (1) The case name and number; (2) The
date on which the inspector general provided the case to the
secretary concerned; (3) Whether the inspector general received
the response of the secretary concerned and the date of that
response; and (4) The name, grade, and duty position of the
officer or employee who took issue with the inspector general's
determination that an act of reprisal occurred, as applicable,
together with any explanation, rationale, or comments on the
matter provided by that officer or employee.

Training Department of Defense and military department human resources
personnel to assist military spouses seeking employment

Military spouse employment is an essential component of
military family readiness. Bringing qualified, highly-motivated
military spouses into the Department of Defense (DOD) civilian
workforce also benefits the Department. The committee is aware
that human resources systems and practices within the DOD
continue to pose significant barriers to military spouse
employment. Specifically, DOD human resources personnel have
demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the authorities and
processes for the non-competitive appointment of military
spouses to DOD positions for which they are qualified.
Notwithstanding the issuance of Executive Order (EO) 13473,
dated September 25, 2018, which allowed agencies to make
noncompetitive appointments of certain military spouses of
members of the Armed Forces, and the enactment of section 573
of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), which expanded non-
competitive appointment eligibility to all spouses of Active-
Duty servicemembers through 2023, the committee is aware of
circumstances in which DOD human resources personnel have
advised military spouse applicants that their only option for
securing employment with the DOD is to compete for appointment
via USAJobs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing on the processes it has or will employ:
(1) To disseminate information about military spouse non-
competitive appointment policies and processes throughout the
DOD; (2) To train and educate DOD and military department human
resources personnel--from headquarters to the installation
level--to apply such policies and processes to hiring actions
for individual military spouse applicants; and (3) To modify
human resources systems to better accommodate military spouse
employment actions. In addition, the briefing shall detail the
oversight mechanisms that each of the Services and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense have applied or will apply to
assess policy compliance by human resources personnel across
the Department and to measure both military spouse and hiring
official satisfaction with the hiring process. The briefing
shall be provided to the committee no later than February 1,
2020.

Transition Assistance Programs at remote and isolated installations

The committee notes the importance of ensuring that
military skills and experience can be applied to gainful
civilian employment after separation and discharge. The
committee is aware that Transition Assistance Programs (TAPs)
provide transitioning servicemembers with job skills training
and apprenticeships that could help prevent above average rates
of suicide, drug addiction, and unemployment found in veteran
populations. The committee encourages military installation
commanders to consider these factors--especially at more remote
and isolated permanent military installations where these
issues compound--when considering civilian training
opportunities for transitioning servicemembers. The committee
also encourages installation commanders to ensure that TAPs are
accessible to servicemembers and to allow them to use
appropriate time off to pursue civilian training.

Tuition assistance in the Reserves and National Guard

Tuition assistance is a valuable incentive that can help
the military meet its recruiting and retention goals. The
committee is aware that there may be differences in how each
military department implements its tuition assistance program,
particularly as it pertains to the Reserves and National Guard,
which often struggle to achieve authorized end strength levels.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Air
Force and the Secretary of the Army to review their respective
tuition assistance policies to identify and rectify any
inconsistencies that may adversely affect the Air National
Guard, Air Force Reserve, Army National Guard, and Army
Reserve.

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Expansion of eligibility for exceptional transitional compensation for
dependents to dependents of current members (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1059(m) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretaries of the military departments to provide
transitional compensation, in exceptional circumstances, to
certain dependents before an eligible servicemember is
discharged from Active Duty. By eliminating the requirement
that a servicemember be separated from Active Duty before a
secretary of a military department may authorize exceptional
eligibility for transitional compensation, this provision would
ensure that all dependents and former dependents who have been
subjected to dependent abuse are treated in a fair, equitable,
and similar manner.

Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year extension of certain expiring bonus and special pay
authorities (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
through December 31, 2020, various expiring bonus and special
pay authorities for military personnel. The provision would
extend special pay and bonus authority for reserve personnel,
military healthcare professionals, and nuclear officers and
consolidated pay authorities for officer and enlisted
personnel. The provision would also extend the authority to
provide temporary increases in the rate of Basic Allowance for
Housing in certain circumstances.

Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

Extension of pilot program on a Government lodging program (sec. 621)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 453 of title 37, United States Code, to extend by 1
year the Secretary of Defense's authority to execute a
Department of Defense (DOD) lodging program.
The Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291) originally authorized a 5-year DOD lodging pilot program.
The pilot program successfully demonstrated increased hotel
quality and substantial discounts in room rates paid by the
government. Additionally, overall traveler satisfaction remains
high. In 2017, the pilot program achieved average savings of 16
percent across 189 participating hotels.
The Department has informed the committee that it will
submit its final report on the lodging pilot program by May 31,
2019. Based on current information, the committee expects to be
satisfied that the pilot program accomplished its stated goal
of achieving significant savings while increasing the quality
of temporary lodging for DOD-funded travelers.
Reinvestment of travel refunds by the Department of Defense (sec. 622)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense with the authority to receive and
effectively reinvest miscellaneous receipts obtained through a
travel rebate or refund program, a repayment of inaccurate
charges, or a collection of an unused travel segment (e.g.,
airline ticket).

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

Contributions to Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund based
on pay costs per Armed Force rather than on Armed Forces-wide
basis (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1465 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the Military
Retirement Fund based on an actuarial calculation of each
service's planned pension obligations, beginning with fiscal
year 2021.
The committee notes that, since 1984, the Department of
Defense (DOD) has funded its military retirement program using
a financing procedure in which the DOD makes monthly
contributions based on percentages of basic pay. This method of
funding, known as accrual accounting, requires the Department
to set aside funds from current budgets for retirement
annuities that will eventually be received by today's military
personnel.
Current law requires the DOD to develop a single
contribution rate across the Department for all Active-Duty
personnel and a single rate for all reserve component
personnel. For example, in fiscal year 2017, the Department
contributed an amount equal to 28.9 percent of Active-Duty
personnel basic pay and an amount equal to 22.8 percent of
selected reserve personnel basic pay to the Military Retirement
Fund.
The committee notes that the current system produces a
disparity between the Services. Those services that have fewer
personnel who reach full retirement eligibility, like the
Marine Corps, contribute more to the Military Retirement Fund
than needed to pay for retired marines' pensions. Meanwhile,
those Services that have larger numbers of personnel who reach
full retirement eligibility, like the Air Force, effectively
receive a discount on their Military Retirement Fund
contributions by paying less than the service will need to fund
retired airmen's pensions.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a
report on December 4, 2018, titled ``Military Retirement:
Service Contributions Do Not Reflect Service Specific Estimated
Costs and Full Effect of Proposed Legislation is Unknown''
(GAO-19-195R). The GAO found that ``the mandated single,
aggregate contribution rate does not reflect service specific
retirement costs.'' Additionally, the GAO found that ``the
estimated probability of reaching 20 years of service was
almost 15 percentage points higher--and more than three times
higher--for the Air Force than the Marine Corps.'' Further, a
recent DOD Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
assessment of the Military Retirement Fund contribution method
found that the current procedure creates ``large cross-
subsidies among the services''' and ``does not provide clear
signals and incentives for shaping an efficient experience mix
of personnel.''
As each service updates its overall force profile to
support the National Defense Strategy and implement other
reforms, like those to the Blended Retirement System, the
committee believes that it is critical that senior leaders in
the DOD accurately account for the fully-burdened life-cycle
cost of each service's manpower plans.
Modification of authorities on eligibility for and replacement of gold
star lapel buttons (sec. 632)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Department of Defense to determine the eligible recipients of
the gold star lapel button. Additionally, the provision would
authorize the Department to replace a lapel button upon
application and without cost.

Subtitle E--Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations

Defense resale system matters (sec. 641)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
coordination with the Chief Management Officer of the
Department of Defense, to maintain oversight of the business
transformation efforts of the defense commissary system and the
exchange stores system to ensure: (1) Development of an inter-
component business strategy that maximizes efficiencies and
results in a viable defense resale system in the future; (2)
Preservation of patron savings and satisfaction from and in the
defense commissary system and exchange stores system; and (3)
Sustainment of financial support of the defense commissary and
exchange systems for morale, welfare, and recreation services
of the Armed Forces. The provision would require the Executive
Resale Board of the Department to advise the Under Secretary on
the implementation of sustainable, complementary operations of
the defense commissary system and the exchange stores system.
Additionally, the provision would require the Defense
Commissary Agency and the Military Exchange Service to identify
and implement best commercial business practices and shared-
services systems while integrating certain services provided by
the exchange stores system within commissary system facilities.
The provision would also require the modernization of
information technology and implementation of cutting-edge
marketing in the defense resale system. Finally, the provision
would amend section 2483(b) of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize inclusion of advertising expenses in the operating
expenses of commissary stores.
The committee notes that military commissaries and
exchanges provide a critical and highly valued in-kind benefit
to military personnel and their families as they help to
supplement servicemembers' incomes through savings on purchases
of food and household items. As the Department implements
changes to the defense resale system to ensure its long-term
viability, the committee anticipates that future modernization
efforts will result in a system that can compete with the
private sector while preserving the in-kind benefit that
patrons expect.
Treatment of fees on services provided as supplemental funds for
commissary operations (sec. 642)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2483(c) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
retention of fees collected on services provided to secondary
patron groups, such as Department of Defense contractors living
overseas, by the Defense Commissary Agency to offset commissary
operating costs.
Procurement by commissary stores of certain locally sourced products
(sec. 643)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that dairy products, fruits, and
vegetables procured for defense commissary stores are, to the
extent practicable, locally sourced.

Items of Special Interest

Blended Retirement System implementation study
The committee notes that the period for eligible members to
elect whether to transition to the new Blended Retirement
System (BRS) has concluded and that all new recruits are now
automatically enrolled in the system. To monitor the
effectiveness of the BRS on both recruitment and retention of
the all-volunteer force, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments and the service chiefs, to review the
implementation of the BRS and provide details regarding ongoing
decisions associated with the new retirement system by
submitting a report, no later than May 1, 2020, that provides
the following information:
(1) An assessment of the BRS transition period, to
include:
(a) An enumeration of members who elected to
transition into the BRS broken out by service,
grade, gender, race, marital status,
occupation, duty location, and other pertinent
demographics;
(b) The proportion of members who elected to
transition by demographic; and
(c) Whether the differences in choice
structure (e.g., marines were required to elect
to either remain in the legacy retirement
system or switch to BRS) contributed to
disparities in enrollment rates between the
Services.
(2) An analysis of Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) matching
contributions, to include:
(a) The TSP contribution level of
servicemembers enrolled in the BRS broken out
by demographic information;
(b) Whether servicemembers who receive
special pay or incentives are more inclined to
contribute and receive matching contributions;
(c) The extent to which the Services are
supporting servicemembers in making sound
financial decisions regarding matching
contributions; and
(d) Whether actual TSP contribution rates and
investment choices are creating a wealth
disparity in retirement among servicemembers.
(3) An explanation of planned continuation pay
policy, to include:
(a) The method the Services will use to
determine continuation pay levels, to include
details on how the Services will determine when
a member will receive notification of the
continuation pay offer, the amount of the
multiplier, the timing of payment, whether the
pay will vary by occupation, skill, or other
factors, and the duration of the required
service obligation; and
(b) An econometric analysis of possible
methods to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of continuation pay.
(4) An analysis of BRS impacts, including:
(a) Whether the BRS has affected or is likely
to affect historic recruitment and retention
trends; and
(b) An assessment of the tools inherent in
DOD BRS policy that will allow the Services to
achieve necessary recruitment and retention
levels; and
(5) Recommendations for statutory change necessary to
address issues of fairness and equity identified by the
review.

Commissary store operations

The committee recognizes the importance of commissary
stores to military families, who rely on these stores for
purchase of food and dry goods at substantial discounts. When
commissaries either undergo periods of closure or reductions of
operating hours, military families cannot use this important
in-kind benefit. Moreover, with prolonged closures during
government shutdowns, military families dependent on
commissaries face even greater hardship. Therefore, the
committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to maintain
commissary operations during any future government shutdowns.

Comptroller General assessment on defense resale reform

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct an assessment of the Department of Defense's
efforts to reform the business operations of the defense resale
system and to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
later than December 1, 2019. The assessment shall include
reviews of: (1) The potential impact of reform on the Defense
Commissary Agency's (DECA) overall sales, expenses, customer
satisfaction, and expense structure; (2) The potential courses
of action that may increase competitiveness, reduce the DECA's
reliance on annual appropriations, and position commissaries
and military exchanges for annual sales growth; (3) Positive
and negative effects of reform on commissary and military
exchange patrons and employees; (4) The potential of the
military exchanges to increase financial support to the
Services' morale, welfare, and recreation programs; and (5)
Accounting procedures pertaining to the sources and uses of
funds generated by and allocated to commissaries to ensure that
sufficient internal controls are in place to safeguard funding.

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1074d(b)(3), 1075(c), 1075a(b), and 1074g(a)(6) of
title 10, United States Code, to require coverage of
contraception services for covered beneficiaries under the
TRICARE program. The provision would prohibit cost-sharing for
any method of contraception provided by a network provider
under TRICARE Select or a provider under TRICARE Prime.
Additionally, a beneficiary would pay no cost-share for any
prescription contraceptive on the uniform formulary that is
provided by a network retail pharmacy provider or the mail-
order pharmacy program. The effective date of this provision
would be January 1, 2020.
TRICARE payment options for retirees and their dependents (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1099 of title 10, United States Code, to require that a
premium owed by a member, former member, or dependent, eligible
for medical and dental care under section 1074(b) or 1076 of
such title, be withheld, to the maximum extent practicable,
from the individual's retired, retainer, or equivalent pay. The
provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to determine
the method and frequency of payment when circumstances prevent
payment through an allotment from retired, retainer, or
equivalent pay. The amendments in this provision would apply to
health care coverage beginning on or after January 1, 2021.
Lead level screening and testing for children (sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish clinical practice guidelines
(CPGs) for Department of Defense healthcare providers on
screening, testing, and reporting of blood lead levels in
children. The provision would require dissemination of the CPGs
within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act.
Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary to
share test results with the parent or guardian of the child,
the health department for the State in which the child resides
in the United States, or the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the appropriate in-country authority if the
child lives outside the United States. Finally, the provision
would require the Secretary to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the number of children
screened, tested, and treated for elevated blood lead levels
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act up to the
date of the report.
Provision of blood testing for firefighters of Department of Defense to
determine exposure to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, beginning on October 1, 2020, to provide
blood testing to determine and document potential exposure to
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances for firefighters
of the Department of Defense during their annual physical
exams.

Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

Modification of organization of military health system (sec. 711)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1073c of title 10, United States Code, to make
clarifying and technical amendments on the administration of
the Defense Health Agency and military medical treatment
facilities.
Support by military health system of medical requirements of combatant
commands (sec. 712)
The committee recommends a provision would amend section
712 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-332) to modify and clarify
the military health system's support to the medical
requirements of the combatant commands.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, not later than January 1, 2021, to
establish a minimum length of 4 years for tours of duty, with
limited exceptions, for commanders or directors of military
treatment facilities to ensure greater stability in health
system executive management at each facility and throughout the
military health system.
The committee remains concerned that military treatment
facility commanders or directors typically rotate to new duty
stations every 2 years and that these frequent transfers lead
to great instability in the management of hospitals and
clinics. The rapid turnover of military hospital commanders and
directors creates turmoil in hospital executive leadership and
management, negatively affecting the performance of the local
facility and the overall performance of the military health
system. The committee believes that this provision would steady
the executive management of military hospitals and clinics and
improve the performance of those facilities.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 705(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to include overseas
medical support contracts in the strategy to improve the
acquisition of managed care support contracts under the TRICARE
program.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, not later than October 1, 2022, to
establish up to four regional medical hubs, consistent with
section 712 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), to
support the operational medical requirements of the combatant
commands. Under this provision, each regional hub would include
a major military medical center to provide complex, specialized
medical services in that region. The regional medical center
would be geographically located to maximize medical support to
combatant commands. The provision would authorize the Secretary
to establish or maintain additional medical centers in
locations with large beneficiary populations or locations that
serve as the primary readiness platforms of the Armed Forces.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to modify the Department's electronic
health record (EHR) system to include data regarding use of
dietary supplements by members of the Armed Forces and any
adverse events associated with such use. The provision would
also require the Secretary to educate healthcare providers in
the military health system on the importance of including
adverse event data in the EHR and reporting those data to the
Food and Drug Administration.

Enhancement of recordkeeping with respect to exposure by members of the
Armed Forces to certain occupational and environmental hazards
while deployed overseas (sec. 717)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1074f of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Department of Defense to include occupational or environmental
health exposures during deployment in its medical tracking
system. The provision would also require the Department to
provide healthcare providers with questions to ask
servicemembers about occupational or environmental health
exposures during post-deployment health assessments and to
ensure that the medical records of servicemembers include
information on the external cause relating to a medical
diagnosis of the member. Finally, the provision would require
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department's
medical personnel have access to information in the burn pit
registry maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title
XVII of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84) to make certain technical corrections to
such title. Additionally, the provision would permit the James
A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center to enter into personal
services contracts to carry out healthcare responsibilities at
the Center to the same extent and subject to the same
conditions and limitations as in medical treatment facilities
of the Department of Defense. Finally, the provision would
extend the authority for the joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Demonstration Fund from
September 30, 2020, to September 30, 2021.

Appointment of non-ex officio members of the Henry M. Jackson
Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine (sec. 722)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of section 178(c) of title
10, United States Code, to authorize the appointment of a
member of the council of the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for
the Advancement of Military Medicine by currently serving
members upon the expiration of the term of a member. The
provision would also amend paragraph (2) of such section to
repeal an obsolete authority establishing staggered terms of
members of the council. The provision would not terminate or
otherwise alter the appointment or term of service of council
members serving on the date of the enactment of this Act.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 7081(d) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
Army Medical Department Officers to command Army dental units.
The provision would give the Secretary of the Army greater
flexibility in managing officers within the Army Medical
Department.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 104 of title 10, United States Code, by inserting a new
section that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
establish an Academic Health System in the National Capital
Region to integrate the healthcare, health professions
education, and health research activities of the military
health system in that region. The provision would authorize the
Secretary to appoint employees of the Department of Defense to
leadership positions in the Academic Health System in addition
to similar leadership positions for members of the Armed
Forces. Moreover, the provision would authorize the Secretary
to use the authorities under chapter 104 for the administration
of the Academic Health System.

Provision of veterinary services by veterinary professionals of the
Department of Defense in emergencies (sec. 725)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
licensed veterinary professional of the Department of Defense
(DOD) to provide veterinary services in any state, the District
of Columbia, and any territory or possession of the United
States, if the services provided fall within the scope of
authorized duties of the veterinary professional for the DOD.
This provision would ensure that the DOD can rapidly respond to
requests for veterinary services assistance from lead Federal
departments and agencies supporting emergency management
responses.

Five-year extension of authority to continue the DOD-VA Health Care
Sharing Incentive Fund (sec. 726)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8111(d)(3) of title 38, United States Code, to extend
the authorization of the Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund to
September 30, 2025.

Pilot Program on civilian and military partnerships to enhance
interoperability and medical surge capability and capacity of
National Disaster Medical System (sec. 727)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program for no more
than 5 years to establish partnerships with public, private,
and non-profit health care organizations, institutions, and
entities in collaboration with the Secretaries of Veterans
Affairs, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and
Transportation to enhance interoperability and medical surge
capability and capacity of the National Disaster Medical
System. Under this pilot, the Secretary of Defense would
establish these partnerships at no fewer than five major
aeromedical transport hub regions of the Department of Defense
in the United States. The provision would require, if the pilot
were to proceed, the Secretary of Defense to submit an initial
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, not later than 180 days after
commencement of the pilot program, and a final report to the
same committees within 180 days of the completion of the
program.

Modification of requirements for longitudinal medical study on blast
pressure exposure of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 728)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 734 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) to modify the requirements
of the Longitudinal Medical Study on Blast Pressure Exposure on
Members of the Armed Forces. The provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit annual status reports on the
study to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives not later than January 1 of each year
until completion of the study.

Items of Special Interest

Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine

The Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine (AFIRM)
is a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary network of
universities, military health system laboratories, and
investigators designed to promote regenerative medicine
therapies. The AFIRM is dedicated to repairing battlefield
injuries with regenerative medicine technology, and it has
supported several clinical trials treating hundreds of patients
with novel therapeutic strategies in wound repair and tissue
replacement. The committee understands that fiscal year 2019 is
the final year of funding for the AFIRM and encourages the
Department of Defense to build upon AFIRM's successes by
renewing the program, using a public-private consortium model,
for another 5-year term.

Chronic Migraine and Post-Traumatic Headaches

The committee understands that chronic migraine (CM) is
often associated with post-traumatic headaches (PTH) of
patients who suffer from traumatic brain injury (TBI). There
appear to be minimal data, however, on the follow-up and
treatment of PTH and post-traumatic chronic migraine beyond 2
years after a TBI. Furthermore, there is very little
biochemical understanding of these disease processes and their
interrelationships, and no biomarkers exist to help diagnose,
classify, and monitor these headache disorders. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to support
research to develop biomarkers useful in diagnosing and
monitoring TBI patients with CM or PTH.

Comptroller General Review of Enlisted Medical Workforce

The committee notes that enlisted medical personnel, such
as medics and corpsmen, represent over half of the total
medical force and that they are essential to maintaining the
Department of Defense's (DOD) substantial health care delivery
capability in both an operational setting and at home for
military families and retirees. At the direction of Congress,
the DOD has taken initial steps to review the readiness of
medical providers. The DOD has also provided some opportunities
for its military physicians to practice at civilian hospitals;
however, many of its enlisted medical personnel are often
utilized differently than comparable professionals in civilian
hospitals and are not required to obtain many of the same
certifications or licenses. Therefore, enlisted medical
personnel may have fewer such opportunities. Given the efforts
that the DOD has initiated to address medical provider
readiness and to ensure that enlisted medical personnel have
skills that are easily transferable to the civilian sector, the
committee is concerned about the overall readiness of the
enlisted medical workforce.
The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a study assessing the enlisted
medical workforce. The study shall review DOD's: (1) Metrics to
assess the clinical currency and readiness of the enlisted
medical workforce; (2) Plans for providing the medical workload
and training necessary to maintain clinical currency and
readiness of enlisted medical personnel, including the DOD's
use of the direct care system; and (3) Enlisted medical
workforce reenlistment rates and efforts to retain those
personnel. The Comptroller General shall present preliminary
observations from the study to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
March 27, 2020.

Department of Defense Briefing on the Rate and Incidence of Pregnancy-
Associated Deaths

The committee believes that caring for servicemembers and
their families is the essential foundation of readiness. The
committee is aware that the United States is the only
industrialized nation with a rising maternal mortality rate.
Data suggest more than half of pregnancy-related deaths are
preventable, and approximately half of maternal injuries could
be reduced or eliminated with better care and enhanced maternal
mortality information systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1,
2020, reporting the rate and incidence of pregnancy-associated
deaths, defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or
during the 1-year period following the date of the end of
pregnancy, and severe maternal morbidities, defined as
unintended outcomes of pregnancy, labor, or delivery that
result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a
woman's health. The briefing should also disaggregate data by
cause of death, race, age, and rank of the woman (if
applicable).

Expansion of Studies of Exposure to Blast in Training And Operations
and Documentation of Blast Exposure in Individual Longitudinal
Exposure Records

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects the mood and memory of
more than 260,000 servicemembers, often disrupting one's
ability to continue to serve, maintain a job, reenter the
community, or even reconnect with family upon returning home
from deployment. The committee is aware of the novel research
undertaken by U.S. Special Operations Command and the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences to identify and
measure the effects on brain and spine health of repeated
exposure to the blast and acceleration effects associated with
military training and operations. The committee commends and
encourages continued innovative experimentation in emerging
strategies and technologies for the prevention of TBI.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department to: (1)
Expand its blast and acceleration effects research and
assessment protocols to other military occupations, weaponry
and equipment, and training experiences, as appropriate; (2)
Formalize the documentation of servicemembers' measurable
exposures to blast and acceleration effects in a longitudinal
exposure record, individual to each servicemember and able to
be shared with the Department of Veterans Affairs; and (3) Take
appropriate actions to inform servicemembers of opportunities
to participate in the programs of the Department of Defense's
Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine brain tissue
repository to advance traumatic brain injury research.

Healthy Food Options on Military Installations

The committee remains concerned about the growing obesity
crisis in the Nation and its potential impact on our national
defense. The lack of healthy food options on military
installations, coupled with servicemembers' poor eating habits,
negatively affects force readiness and retention. Military
dining facilities are currently the healthiest food option on
installations; however, the committee understands that young
servicemembers eat fewer than half of their meals at these
facilities. Instead, they choose to purchase less healthy food
at other on- or off-base venues.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than
November 1, 2019, on the feasibility of continuing and
expanding food service transformation efforts, focusing on
nutritious food options, with the goal of modernizing the on-
installation food service system. The briefing should include a
plan for improving on-base accessibility to healthful prepared
and pre-prepared food, leveraging leading practices from
college and university dining facilities and lessons learned
from previous Department of Defense food service transformation
efforts. In addition, the plan should include a description of
the potential to establish partnerships with local communities
to improve the food service environment on military
installations and to encourage healthful eating. Finally, the
plan should include tests of various business models that
increase the availability, affordability, and acceptability of
healthy performance foods.

Home healthcare services

The committee supports the adoption of a program that would
authorize a parent or family member to become a certified
nursing assistant (CNA) to provide approved and medically-
necessary skilled services for an eligible dependent child of
that parent or family member under the TRICARE program. The
parent or family member would be required to complete all
required education and clinical training to become a licensed
CNA before being authorized to provide physician-ordered care
to the child. By authorizing family members to become certified
home health care providers, the TRICARE program might
experience a reduction in direct costs associated with the
provision of home health care services.

Objective diagnostic capabilities for traumatic brain injury

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for
its significant efforts to improve the diagnosis of traumatic
brain injury (TBI). Nevertheless, the DOD must do more work to
develop advanced capabilities to diagnose TBI in all its forms,
including mild TBI (mTBI)/concussion, which accounts for the
vast majority of TBIs. To maintain the readiness of the total
force and to protect service personnel better, it is imperative
that the Department deploy capabilities that provide objective
diagnostics for TBI in all its forms, particularly mTBI/
concussion. Therefore, the committee encourages the DOD to
deploy mTBI/concussion multi-modal diagnostic devices, already
cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, for echelons four
and five medical care.

Pilot program on partnerships with civilian organizations for
specialized medical training

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program to assess the feasibility and
advisability of establishing partnerships with public, private,
and non-profit organizations and institutions to provide short-
term specialized medical training to advance the medical skills
and capabilities of military medical providers.
If the Secretary determines to conduct the pilot program,
the Secretary should first establish metrics to evaluate the
effectiveness of the program. The committee considers such a
pilot program an important element in helping military medical
providers advance their skills and capabilities in medical
specialties, such as orthopedic surgery, which would improve
the medical readiness of the total force.

Prescription drug labels

As prescription drug manufacturers consider adoption of e-
labels for some of their products, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to ensure that prescription drugs made
available through the facilities of the uniformed services are
accompanied by printed labels that are physically located on or
within the package from which the drug is dispensed. These
labels importantly provide adequate directions for a drug's
intended purposes. In situations where servicemembers are
stationed in remote, internet-free locations, physical labels
can often provide more reliable access to information than
electronic labels.

Study on infertility in members of the Armed Forces

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study on the incidence of infertility among members of the
Armed Forces and provide a report, not later than June 1, 2020,
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives. The study shall include the following
elements: (1) Determination of the numbers of currently serving
members of the Armed Forces who have been diagnosed with a
common cause of infertility; (2) Determination of the number of
servicemembers whose infertility has no known cause; (3)
Determination of the incidence of miscarriage among female
servicemembers by service and military occupation; (4)
Comparison of infertility rates of female servicemembers to the
infertility rates of their civilian counterparts; (5)
Determination of demographic information about such
servicemembers to include race, ethnicity, sex, age, military
occupation, and possible hazardous environmental exposures
during service; (6) Determination of the availability of
infertility services for those servicemembers who desire such
treatment, including waitlist times at the military treatment
facilities providing those services; (7) Criteria used by each
of the Services to determine service-connection for
infertility, including whether screenings for environmental
toxins were performed when the cause of infertility could not
be determined; and (8) Current policies of the Department of
Defense for ensuring geographic stability during the treatment
of servicemembers' undergoing medical treatment for
infertility.

Survey to determine providers' attitude towards contraceptive services,
their knowledge on obligations to dispense and counsel on
contraception and assess potential cultural barriers to
providing contraceptive services

The committee recognizes that access to contraception
contributes to operational force readiness by ensuring that
servicemembers can utilize contraception to prevent unintended
pregnancies, manage their menstrual cycles, and for other non-
contraceptive benefits. The committee is also aware that
menstruation can be problematic during deployment and access to
contraception, including for menstrual suppression, is a
critical part of women's preventive health care. The committee
is pleased that the Armed Forces have made significant strides
in improving access to contraception for military
servicemembers, including ensuring that military facilities
stock a broad range of Food and Drug Administration-approved
methods of contraception and allowing contraception to be
provided for the length of a servicemember's deployment.
However, the committee is concerned that misconceptions remain
among both servicemembers and military healthcare providers
about limitations on access to contraception for and during
deployment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a survey of active military and civilian healthcare
providers who may counsel on or provide contraception in
military treatment facilities, assessing their knowledge on
prescribing and providing contraception for and during
deployment. The survey should include questions on: (1) Whether
the provider dispenses contraceptives in deployment settings;
(2) Whether the provider believes that it is permitted to
dispense contraception when a General Order prohibits sexual
activity during deployment; (3) How large a supply of
contraceptives a provider believes that it is authorized to
dispense at a time; and (4) Circumstances under which the
provider may not dispense requested contraception.
Additionally, the survey should address the training a provider
has received in contraceptive counseling, including whether the
provider is knowledgeable about and provides information on the
use of contraception for menstrual suppression and other
deployment-relevant aspects of contraceptive methods such as
shelf life and storage requirements. The survey shall
disaggregate data by service branch.
The Department shall provide a briefing on the survey
results to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than 90 days after the
completion of the survey.

Tactical combat casualty care training

Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 1322.24 requires
all warfighters to complete Tactical Combat Casualty Care
(TCCC) training as part of basic mobilization readiness,
because TCCC is an important step in ensuring that military
personnel receive the best pre-hospital medical care available.
The committee has received reports, however, of substantial
variation in TCCC training, including the teaching of
incomplete or incorrect TCCC concepts. To address this
variation, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of
Defense to: (1) Evaluate best practices for TCCC in the
Services; and (2) Establish standards to ensure uniform TCCC
training for military personnel, to include training standards
for best instructional practices for personnel conducting TCCC
training.

TRICARE coverage of continuous glucose monitors

Approximately 420,000 military members or their family
members have diabetes, with 180,000 of these patients currently
using insulin. If not treated, diabetics face higher risks of
heart disease, kidney failure, limb amputations, and blindness.
The committee is aware that innovations in diabetes treatment
options include recent technological advancements to continuous
glucose monitoring systems (CGMS). These devices provide
continuous glucose readings for patients and their physicians,
allowing for more effective prevention strategies and better
health outcomes. In 2017, Medicare expanded its diabetes
treatment coverage for beneficiaries to include CGM coverage
for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, among other criteria. The
Veterans Health Administration subsequently updated its
criteria for determining eligibility for CGM in January 2019, a
change that has the potential to make this life-improving and
cost-saving technology available to more veterans. Private
payers are also providing coverage for these devices at an
increasing rate. Given the detrimental health impact of
diabetes as well as the increased costs incurred for direct
treatment and co-morbid medical complications of this disease,
TRICARE should ensure that its beneficiaries have appropriate
access to innovative and effective diabetes treatment options,
access at least comparable to that enjoyed by veterans and
Medicare beneficiaries. The committee encourages the Secretary
of Defense to update the TRICARE criteria for use for CGMS and
directs the Secretary to provide an update on its progress not
later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

TRICARE improper medical claims payments

The committee remains concerned about improper payments to
TRICARE network providers. The Government Accountability Office
published a report on February 18, 2015, titled ``Improper
Payments: TRICARE Measurements and Reduction Efforts Could
Benefit from Adopting Medical Record Reviews'' (GAO-15-269),
that recommended that the Department of Defense implement more
comprehensive TRICARE improper payment measurement methods that
include medical record reviews. The Department concurred with
this recommendation. Almost 4 years after the publication of
this report, however, the Department has yet to implement this
recommendation.
Therefore, not later than November 1, 2019, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a comprehensive
report detailing: (1) The extent to which the Department will
conduct medical record reviews; (2) The processes to request
and receive such records from civilian network providers; (3)
The manner in which cases will be coded if medical records are
not returned; and (4) How the Department plans to use the
results of the medical record reviews to improve its processes
to identify improper payments and to lower the improper payment
error rate. Additionally, within 270 days of the Department's
submission of this report, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall provide a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the
extent to which the Department's plan for including medical
record reviews in its improper payment error rate calculation
addresses the four areas outlined above and whether the
Department's medical record reviews process will result in a
more robust and meaningful measure of improper medical claims
payments by TRICARE.

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

Subtitle A--Contracting and Acquisition Provisions

Pilot program on intellectual property evaluation for acquisition
programs (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military
departments to jointly carry out a pilot program evaluating
intellectual property in acquisition programs, using
commercially available intellectual property valuation analysis
and techniques, in order to determine these techniques' utility
in the formation of strategies and in assessing the value and
costs of intellectual property during acquisition and
sustainment activities. The committee notes that this provision
is based on the recommendation of the Congressionally-mandated
Technology Data Rights Study (``Section 813'') panel.
Under the provision, if the pilot program were to be
carried out, the Secretary of Defense would submit a report on
the pilot to the congressional defense committees not later
than November 1, 2020, and annually thereafter through 2023.
Pilot program to use alpha contracting teams for complex requirements
(sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program to use third-
party industry, academia, or not-for-profit technical
organizations as part of alpha contracting teams for complex
technical requirements for services. The committee notes that
this construct revives in a modern context the ``alpha
contracting'' concept that is more than a decade old. Further,
it brings together all government personnel involved in the
functions that support acquisition actions, to include
contracting staff as well as technical staff, operators, and
cost personnel. This is intended to ensure that technical
requirements are appropriately valued and that the most
effective acquisition strategy to achieve these requirements is
identified.
Modification of written approval requirement for task and delivery
order single contract awards (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2304a(d)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to
eliminate the requirement that single award task or delivery
order contracts over $100.0 million receive additional approval
when already authorized under one of the exceptions to full and
open competition.
Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in
countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec.
804)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to acquire products and services produced in
countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan until
December 31, 2021.
Modification of Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report
(sec. 805)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to solicit comments
from the Secretaries of the military departments for inclusion
in the Director's annual report to Congress, retaining the
Director's discretion to issue the report without comments if
they are not timely. This provision does not change or alter
any Director of Operational Test and Evaluation authorities.
Department of Defense use of fixed-price contracts (sec. 806)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to
review how the Department of Defense uses fixed-price
contracts, including fixed-price incentive contracts, to
support acquisition objectives. The committee is concerned
about the extent to which the Department is using fixed-price
contracts in situations in which other contract types would be
more appropriate. Under this provision, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment would provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the results
of this review not later than February 1, 2020.
The provision would further require the Comptroller General
of the United States to submit a report on the Department's use
of fixed-price contracts over time, to include costs,
incentives, duration, and close-out procedures, to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
2021.
Finally, the provision would delay the implementation of
regulations requiring the use of fixed-price contracts for
foreign military sales until after 2020.
Pilot program to accelerate contracting and pricing processes (sec.
807)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend a
pilot established in section 890 of the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232). That law authorized the Secretary of Defense to reform
and accelerate the contracting and pricing processes for 10
programs on a pilot basis. The amendment would remove the 10-
program limitation and would delay the program's sunset from
January 2, 2021, to January 2, 2022.
Pilot program to streamline decision-making processes for weapon
systems (sec. 808)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
service acquisition executive for each military department to
recommend at least one major defense acquisition program to
participate in the pilot program not later than February 1,
2020, and require the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment to brief the congressional defense
committees on these programs not later than May 1, 2020.
The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD)
weapon system programs often proceed slowly through the
acquisition milestone decision process. In 2015, the
Comptroller General of the United States recommended that the
Secretary of Defense direct efforts to improve this process by
piloting different approaches to streamline acquisition
milestone decisions in major defense acquisition programs, with
results that could be evaluated on and reported for potentially
wider use. The committee notes that this reflects the ``Skunk
Works'' approach described in DOD's ``Better Buying Power 3.0''
memorandum. To date, the Government Accountability Office
reports that only two weapon systems programs have participated
in this program.
Documentation of market research related to commercial item
determinations (sec. 809)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2377(c) of title 10, United States Code, to require
that market research be documented, at a level appropriate to
the size and complexity of the acquisition, when procuring
commercial products and services.
Modification to small purchase threshold exception to sourcing
requirements for certain articles (sec. 810)
The committee recommends a provision that would lower the
threshold for which the Department of Defense must comply with
the rules of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code,
known as the Berry Amendment, to $150,000. The committee
further directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual
briefing on the impacts of this provision to: Department of
Defense costs and procurement efficiency and the health of the
affected portions of the domestic industrial base.

Subtitle B--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Naval vessel certification required before Milestone B approval (sec.
821)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
certification of compliance with section 8669b of title 10,
United States Code, for naval vessel programs prior to
Milestone B approval.

Subtitle C--Industrial Base Matters

Modernization of acquisition processes to ensure integrity of
industrial base (sec. 831)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to modernize mitigation of risks to the
integrity of the supply chain, to include those cited in recent
studies on the defense industrial base.
The committee observes that contracting is the mechanism by
which the Department of Defense operationalizes its
relationship with the defense industrial base/national security
innovation base.
The committee notes that certain risks to the defense
industrial base are not being appropriately considered. These
include but are not limited to risks associated with:
insufficient insight into ownership structures, fragile sources
of supply, and cybersecurity concerns, as well as contractors'
violations of law pertaining to fraud, human trafficking, and
worker health and safety.
The committee further notes that, even where risks may be a
high priority, the existing acquisition processes and
procedures are not effective or timely in mitigating such
risks. As such, the provision would require the Department to
rigorously optimize the policy, processes, and procedures
throughout the contracting life cycle, beginning with market
research, responsibility determination, technical evaluation/
award, mobilization, contract administration, contract
management and oversight (to include contractor business
systems reviews), and contract audit for closeout. It is
critical that this optimization incorporate modern sources of
data and methods to conduct appropriate and continuous risk
assessment for contractors doing business with DOD.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to coordinate individual reviews in these
risk areas, report on them collectively, and begin annual
reviews of the Department's progress in this area.

Assessment of precision-guided missiles for reliance on foreign-made
microelectronic components (sec. 832)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Air Force to assess its reliance on foreign sources for all
microelectronics in precision guided munitions currently in
production. The Air Force would be required to identify which
tier subcontractor supplied the microelectronics and evaluate
the cybersecurity risk to precision guided munitions posed by
foreign-made microelectronics. The provision would require the
Air Force to brief the findings of its assessment to the
congressional defense committees no later than August 31, 2020.

Mitigating risks related to foreign ownership, control, or influence of
Department of Defense contractors or subcontractors (sec. 833)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to amend policy and regulation to take
steps to enhance the process for assessing and mitigating risks
related to foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI).
The committee is concerned by the growing threat to the
integrity of the defense industrial base from strategic
competitors, like the Russian Federation, the People's Republic
of China, and their proxies, seeking to gain access to
sensitive defense information or technology through contractors
or subcontractors. The committee recognizes the need for the
Department's acquisition community to have greater visibility
into the potential FOCI of contractors and subcontractors
seeking to do business with the Department to ensure that they
do not pose a risk to the security of sensitive data, systems,
or processes such as personally identifiable information,
cybersecurity systems, or national security systems.
In order to aid in identifying the actual individual or
individuals owning or controlling each contractor or
subcontractor, the provision would require the companies to
make certain disclosures. Such disclosures would then be
considered in determining the responsibility of the contractor
being considered for a contract or subcontract and standards
under which a contract or subcontract could be terminated due
to unmitigable risks.

Extension and revisions to Never Contract With the Enemy (sec. 834)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
Never Contract With the Enemy program through 2023 and would
provide for various expansions, including the contracts covered
and the authorities of the combatant commands to mitigate
threats posed by vendors supporting operations outside the
United States.

Subtitle D--Small Business Matters

Reauthorization and improvement of Department of Defense Mentor-Protege
Program (sec. 841)

The committee recommends a provision that would make the
Department of Defense's Mentor-Protege Program (MPP) permanent
and repeal the half-size standard restriction for protege
participants, restoring eligibility to disadvantaged small
business concerns. The committee notes that the Government
Accountability Office published a report on April 11, 2017,
titled ``Small Business Contracting: DOD Should Take Actions To
Ensure that Its Pilot Mentor-Protege Program Enhances the
Capabilities of Protege Firms'' (GAO-17-172), which recommended
that the Department take steps to ensure that the MPP achieves
its mission by conducting periodic reviews of the processes for
approving agreements and by developing performance goals and
measures. Accordingly, the provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense to direct the Defense Business Board to
study the effectiveness of the program and make recommendations
for program improvements.

Modification of justification and approval requirement for certain
Department of Defense contracts (sec. 842)

The committee recommends a provision that would revise
authorities relating to Department of Defense approval of
certain sole source awards to 8(a) firms, which include tribes,
Alaska Native, and Hawaiian firms. Specifically, the threshold
for requiring justification and approval would be increased to
$100.0 million and the approving authority would be the head of
procuring activity or a designee. The provision would also
require the Department of Defense to collect data and the
Comptroller General of the United States to report to the
congressional defense committees on the impact of the
provision.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure
compliance with all appropriate acquisition regulations and
Small Business Administration rules, including those regarding
ownership of 8(a) firms and in managing the subcontracting of
work contracted to 8(a) firms. In ensuring such compliance, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment to establish mechanisms to collect
and analyze relevant data.

Subtitle E--Provisions Related to Software-Driven Capabilities

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

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's
process to account for, manage, and report its information
technology and cyberspace investments--which account for at
least $50.0 billion annually--is inefficient. Further, the
committee believes that the process results in unnecessary
delays in preparing the annual budget exhibit and in regulatory
reporting under the Federal Information Technology Acquisition
Reform Act of 2015, incorporated into the Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291). After years of legislation and
regulation, the definitions pertaining to and the methods of
grouping and accounting for spending on these investments have
become cumbersome and obscure and as such hinder, rather than
assisting with, insight into and oversight of spending plans
and portfolio management.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that
would require the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to work with
the Chief Data Officer to optimize this process. Such
optimization should include alternative methods of presenting
budget justification materials to the public and congressional
staff to more accurately communicate when, how, and with what
frequency capability is delivered to end users, in accordance
with best practices for managing and reporting on information
technology investments. The committee directs the CIO to brief
the congressional defense committees and recommend any
necessary legislative changes not later than February 3, 2020.

Special pathways for rapid acquisition of software applications and
upgrades (sec. 852)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish guidance, not later than 180
days after the enactment of this Act, authorizing the use of
special pathways for the rapid acquisition of software
applications and upgrades that are intended to be fielded
within 1 year. These new pathways would prioritize continuous
integration and delivery of working software in a secure manner
and prioritize continuous oversight from automated analytics.
Further, the committee commends the work of the Defense
Innovation Board (DIB) in conducting its ``Software Acquisition
and Practices'' study and further commends the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment's commitment to
adopting the DIB's recommendations. The committee agrees with
the premise outlined in the report that ``software is never
done'' and with the emphasis on the distinct role of software
development in both applications and embedded systems. The
committee categorically agrees with the three themes of the
report: ``Speed and cycle time are the most important metrics
for managing software''; ``Software is made by people and for
people, so digital talent matters''; and ``Software is
different than hardware (and not all software is the same).''

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Notification of Navy procurement production disruptions (sec. 861)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to require prime contractors of any Navy
procurement program to report, within 15 calendar days of any
contractor or subcontractor stop work order or within 15 days
of a contractor or subcontractor manufacturing disruption that
has lasted 15 calendar days, to the respective program manager
and Navy technical authority. The provision would also require
the Secretary of the Navy to provide a quarterly notification
of such disruptions to the congressional defense committees.
The committee is concerned by the delay in reporting of
recent stop work orders and other manufacturing disruptions to
Navy program management officials. The committee notes that
multiple shipbuilding programs have been negatively impacted by
unacceptable delays in reporting such disruptions. The
committee believes that more timely notifications of such
disruptions will decrease the time required to initiate and
complete corrective actions necessary to resume production.

Modification to acquisition authority of the Commander of the United
States Cyber Command (sec. 862)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), which established the
acquisition authority of the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command,
to change the applicability of the annual limit to new contract
efforts.

Prohibition on operation or procurement of foreign-made unmanned
aircraft systems (sec. 863)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the operation or procurement of foreign-made unmanned aircraft
systems by the Department of Defense.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from awarding contracts to certain
persons and entities affiliated with the illegitimate Maduro
regime of Venezuela.

Comptroller General of the United States report on Department of
Defense efforts to combat human trafficking through procurement
practices (sec. 865)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Comptroller General of the United States to report on the
Department of Defense's efforts to combat trafficking in
persons through procurement practices.

Items of Special Interest

Alternatives to cost or pricing data

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
produces and develops many goods and services outside of
traditional commercial markets, often in situations where there
is only one customer and one or few viable vendors. In the
absence of market forces, the Department is forced to use other
mechanisms to ensure that it is obtaining the best value and
paying a fair price for these goods and services. This commonly
requires the delivery of certified cost or pricing data from
vendors to achieve this necessary goal. However, this creates a
time and cost burden on both the vendors and the government
customer, which in some cases slows procurement processes.
Ultimately this leads to operational systems and technologies
being behind the pace of global innovation and is unnecessarily
expensive for the taxpayer. In addition, the government-unique
activities associated with this practice often create a barrier
to entry into the defense market for potential commercial and
small business suppliers.
The committee notes that there may be alternative practices
that could speed the process of determining fair prices and
best value for customers in the absence of a market but that
these practices require research, development, prototyping, and
testing before they can be employed at scale. The committee
directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering jointly develop a university research program,
modeled on the current university basic research activities of
the DOD, with experts in academia to explore and develop
alternatives to certified cost or pricing data. The committee
notes that these academic researchers should be partnered with
the Defense Acquisition University and other DOD organizations
to promote the sharing of relevant data and the transition of
research products into practice. The committee further notes
that the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund account
is already authorized to fund research of this type and
recommends the use of this funding to support these activities.
The committee directs the Department to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees on activities to support this
effort not later than February 1, 2020, as well as any research
products that result from these activities over time.

Annual report on denials of contracting officer data requests

The committee is encouraged that, in response to
recommendations from a 2019 Department of Defense (DOD)
Inspector General report on price reasonable determinations,
the Acting Principal Director for Defense Pricing and
Contracting agreed to: (1) Update policy on reporting
requirements for contractor denial of cost data and establish a
framework for quarterly reporting on such denials; and (2)
Recommend that a group of experts assess the data reported to
identify contractors a high-risk for unreasonable pricing. The
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment to submit to the congressional
defense committees an annual report detailing instances where
potential contractors denied requests by the DOD to provide
contracting officers with requested uncertified cost or pricing
data to allow for the determination of fair and reasonable
pricing for acquisitions. The report should contain at a
minimum a summary of the individual cases in which contracting
officers were denied requested data by potential contractors.
The initial report shall be submitted not later than December
31, 2020.

Appreciation for the work of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Regulations

The committee commends the work of the Advisory Panel on
Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, established
by section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The committee notes that,
since the Panel was established, it has made 98 recommendations
across 3 report volumes and continues to identify areas where
United States Code can be reorganized for clarity and
efficiency. The Congress has enacted a number of the
recommendations from the first two volumes in prior National
Defense Authorization Acts. This committee continues to
carefully consider the recommendations of the Panel.

Army strategies to manage intellectual property

The committee notes that the Army has recently approved a
new intellectual property management policy that seeks to
address the shortcomings of how the Army has managed
intellectual property with previous acquisition programs. The
committee believes that, as the Army pursues its major
modernization priorities, it is important to appropriately
determine rights and access related to intellectual property
and technical data to facilitate the sustainment of these new
systems for the next several years, and the committee
encourages the Army to pursue innovative strategies to do so.

Comptroller General assessment of Internet Protocol version four (IPv4)
utilization

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees, no later than March 1, 2020, on the Department of
Defense's utilization of Internet Protocol version four (IPv4)
addresses. The report's elements shall include: (1) Actual
utilization, comparing IPv4 addresses assigned vs. those being
used; (2) Statutory, policy, and security requirements
affecting the Department's ability to grant or sell
underutilized addresses to the private sector (whether due to
underutilization or post-transition to Internet Protocol
version six (IPv6)); (3) Status of transition from IPv4 to
IPv6; and (4) Additional matters that the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.

Comptroller General review of Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation
Program contract

The committee notes that the U.S. military has long relied
on contractors to support deployed U.S. forces, especially
under the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP),
a contract which provides for food service, sanitation,
billeting, maintenance, and power generation for military
operations and associated civilian support. The Department has
persistently faced challenges with such contracts, to include:
limited insight into the nature and extent of reliance on
contractors; cost and requirements growth; and military
commanders' inconsistent understanding of their roles and
responsibilities in theater.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to assess the following: (1) What lessons
the Department learned from prior LOGCAP contracts and how
these lessons were incorporated into the requirements and
acquisition strategy for LOGCAP V; (2) Whether the Department
developed plans to transition services being provided under
LOGCAP IV to the LOGCAP V contract and the sufficiency of those
plans; (3) The Army's construct for LOGCAP V planners and the
extent to which it is sufficient; (4) The sufficiency of the
Army's plans to designate and train contracting officer
representatives; and (5) Any other issues that the Comptroller
General determines appropriate with respect to the LOGCAP
program.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees not
later than February 28, 2020, on the preliminary findings of
this review and to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing.

Contractor workplace safety

The committee notes the September 2018 Department of
Defense report titled ``Assessing and Strengthening the
Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain
Resiliency of the United States,'' which cited diminishing
manufacturing sources and material shortages as risks and the
corresponding need to expand certain domestic manufacturing to
address these risks.
The committee is therefore concerned by a February 2019
Government Accountability Office report, ``Defense Contracting:
Enhanced Information Needed on Contractor Workplace Safety''
(GAO-19-235), which detailed violations of certain workplace
safety and health regulations by Department contractors in
high-risk industries, including construction and manufacturing.
Among the recommendations were advising all contracting
officials of the availability of data published by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and exploring the
feasibility of requiring a safety performance rating for
contracts in high-risk industries.
The committee strongly supports a thriving defense
industrial base, especially in manufacturing, where the
Department expects to see growth to address risks and
objectives of the National Defense Strategy. Given that the
Department agreed with the GAO recommendations, the committee
expects the Department to fully and expeditiously implement
them.
The committee further recommends that the Department
explore other measures to ensure that data on contractors'
compliance with workplace safety and health regulations are
available and assessed during the acquisition process in an
efficient and effective manner.

Implications of acquisition reform for the organic industrial base

The committee notes that, in September 2018, the Department
of Defense (DOD) released the report ``Assessing and
Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and
Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States.'' The report
stated that, while commercial industry is the dominant
component of the industrial base, the DOD organic industrial
base--composed of government-owned, government-operated
maintenance depots, shipyards, and manufacturing arsenals--is
critical to our defense. The report also noted that prior
acquisition reforms have had unintended negative impacts on the
DOD organic industrial base.
To fully understand the impacts of these changes, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, with inputs from the sustainment
commands of the Services, to assess the effects that
acquisition changes over the last 5 years have had on the DOD
organic industrial base. This assessment shall be provided to
the congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
2020.

Notifications related to exercising an option on a contract

The committee observes that regulation requires the
government, on an active contract, to notify the contractor if
it will exercise an option on the contract 60 days prior to the
exercise date. The committee is concerned that 60 days notice
may create hardship for some contractors doing business with
the Department of Defense and encourages the cognizant
contracting official at the Department of Defense to the
maximum extent practicable to notify the contractor whether or
not the Department intends to exercise the option earlier than
60 days prior to the option exercise date.

Optimizing processes and acquisition of contract writing capabilities

The committee notes that significant direction was provided
to the Department of Defense to rationalize the business
portfolio area of contract-writing in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and
the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232). This direction included
funding reductions, reporting requirements, and required
commitments by the Services to reduce the number of contract-
writing systems in use from 17 to 1 by 2020.
The committee further notes that, despite this direction,
there are still two different solutions and three different
contracting arrangements being pursued by the Department. The
committee remains concerned about the inability of disparate
acquisition strategies to leverage common requirements,
commercial processes, and solutions for writing contracts. As
such, elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a number
of specific reductions in funds for contract-writing systems to
encourage the Department to complete the rationalization of
contract-writing systems.

Place of performance in Department of Defense contracts

The committee is aware that contracts awarded by the
Department of Defense sometimes include place of performance
clauses that can be advantageous to areas that have higher
costs and higher populations. To understand the logistical and
national security necessity of these place of performance
clauses, the committee directs the Chief Management Officer to
commission a study that analyzes the number of contracts
awarded that include place of performance clauses.
Additionally, the study should include analysis of the labor,
real estate, cost of living, contractor retention rates, and
other financial costs and benefits of including such a
requirement in Department of Defense contracts.

Proper evaluation of past performance and experience of potential
offerors

The committee notes that changing business models and
corporate practices have led to alternative ownership
structures and partnership arrangements for potential and
current defense contractors. The committee also notes that
current acquisition regulations give the Department of Defense
flexibility in evaluating past performance information
regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have
relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major
or critical aspects of requirements when such information is
relevant to the acquisition. The committee, however, also
recognizes that there are concerns about the consistency and
clarity in how the Department, as well as other federal
agencies, are considering the past performance and experience
of parent, subsidiary, and sister organizations of firms,
including those associated with Alaskan Native Corporation/
Tribal/Native Hawaiian corporations, when soliciting and
evaluating potential offers to meet federal requirements.
The committee believes that providing additional guidance
and training to contracting personnel to ensure that
solicitations clearly state the extent to which and how the DOD
will consider the past performance and experience of these
sister organizations during the evaluation of an offeror's bid
will reduce miscommunication and frustration with the federal
procurement process, lead to more informed selection of
vendors, help establish more strategic relationships with high
performing vendors, and support improved performance by
contractors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to: (1) Develop policies to ensure that solicitations
are clear and transparent; and (2) Provide training to its
contracting personnel to ensure the proper consideration of the
past performance and experience of predecessor companies,
sister subsidiaries, and key personnel that will perform major
or critical aspects of the requirement when soliciting and
evaluating offers.

Report on service contract management and oversight

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chief Management Officer, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and the
Secretaries of the military departments, to review current
mechanisms for overseeing defense service contracts, including
the service contract inventories, and to identify ways to
update the approach to improve the management and oversight of
service contracts. The committee notes that the Section 809
Panel ``Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Regulations'' recommends that the
Department of Defense center its service contracts reporting on
broad strategic purposes, objectives, and key performance
results of the contracts being assessed.
The Department's review shall leverage the expertise of the
Chief Data Officer to ensure that the approaches identified
align with and support the analytic capabilities of the
Department of Defense. Further, the review shall ensure the
implementation of continuous business process changes and
supporting information technology investments to deploy and
sustain a capability to continuously monitor, analyze, and
oversee these types of contracts and associated spending.
Finally, the Department's review shall address how the
identified approaches support the oversight, data analytics,
and outcome measurements for service contracts specified in
section 2329 of title 10, United States Code. This report shall
be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later
than December 1, 2019.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the Department's report and its proposed
approach to determine the extent to which they have the
potential to improve the Department's management of service
contracts. This assessment would consider prior reviews of the
Department's service contracts, including the service contract
inventories. The Comptroller General shall report to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 2020,
or 3 months after the Department's report is submitted to
Congress, whichever occurs later.

Secure development operations software stacks

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
several programs and activities underway to explore the
concepts, technologies, roles and responsibilities, and
procedures associated with secure development operations or
DevSecOps. The committee encourages the Department to continue
these activities and, in doing so, recommends that the
Secretary of Defense designate a single official responsible
for coordinating these activities to identify best practices
and recommend policy and guidance to unify the activities
across the Department.

Stakeholder engagement practices of the Defense Innovation Board

The committee commends the Defense Innovation Board's
process for conducting its study on software acquisition and
practices under section 872 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2018 (Public Law 115-91). The committee
notes the benefit of the Board's process for identifying
stakeholders and encouraging their active engagement in the
Board's work, to include: the formulation of working
hypotheses; iteratively publishing draft content and white
papers; exposing potential recommendations; encouraging
meaningful public dialogue and enabling transparency; and
prioritizing content and recommendations for inclusion in the
final report. This engagement resulted in a refined product
whose premises had been tested and improved by a deep bench of
knowledge both within and outside the Department of Defense.
This yielded recommendations pertaining to Congress' role that
were relevant, actionable, and useful to this committee.

Training of skilled technicians for the defense industrial base

The committee notes that the September 2018 Department of
Defense report ``Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing
and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the
United States'' stated: ``Without concerted action that
provides both a ready workforce and a continuously charged
pipeline of new employees, the U.S. will not be able to
maintain the large, vibrant, and diverse machine tools sector
needed to produce the required number and types of products
when needed.''
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to develop a plan, cost estimate, and schedule for a pilot
program to train skilled technicians for immediate placement in
the Defense Industrial Base, including critical shipbuilding
skills such as welding, metrology, quality assurance,
machining, and additive manufacturing. The committee notes that
these activities may benefit from partnering with State-level
efforts to leverage investment and infrastructure in training
and education and existing workforce development partnerships
with the Defense Industrial Base as well as relevant federal
programs, such as the National Network of Manufacturing
Institutes and the Department of Defense Industrial Base
Analysis and Sustainment program. The committee directs the
Secretary to provide an annotated briefing on the plan, cost
estimate, and schedule for a potential pilot program to the
Senate Armed Services Committee no later than September 15,
2020.

Uncertified cost data

The committee notes that the Truth in Negotiations Act
authorizes the contracting officer to require that other than
certified data be submitted when deemed necessary to determine
price reasonableness. Contracting officers have this authority
even as it relates to commercial items. The committee also
notes that the Congress strengthened the Department of
Defense's ability to get uncertified data in section 808 of the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261) by directing that the Federal
Acquisition Regulation be amended to provide that a
contractor's ``compliance with a requirement to submit data for
a contract or subcontract in accordance with section
2306a(d)(l) of title 10, United States Code . . . shall be a
condition for the offeror to be eligible to enter into the
contract or subcontract, subject to such exceptions as the
Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council determines
appropriate.''
Other statutory authorities are available to the Department
of Defense to ensure price reasonableness, including the
Defense Production Act (Public Law 81-774), as amended, and
section 2304(b) of title 10, United States Code, which
authorizes the head of an agency to exclude a particular source
in order to establish an alternative source of supply if doing
so would ``likely result in reduced overall costs for such
procurement, or for any anticipated procurement, of property or
services.'' The committee directs the Department to use all
applicable authorities to protect the taxpayer from predatory
practices by companies that refuse to provide data to establish
price reasonableness. The committee further encourages the
Department to take all steps necessary to ensure that the
acquisition workforce is sufficiently trained on and empowered
to use available authorities to protect the Department and
taxpayers from price gouging.

Wider adoption of model contracts for Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program awards

The committee notes that the Air Force is using model
contracts and ``pitch days''' for Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program awards. This simplifies and accelerates
awards in ways that are critical to small businesses. The
committee encourages other military services and offices
awarding SBIR contracts to consider similar approaches to
improve efficiency.

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

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

Headquarters activities of the Department of Defense matters (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection 921(b) of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) to
repeal the certification of cost savings under that subsection
and to require periodic assessments from the Secretary of
Defense, through the Chief Management Officer, on enterprise
business operations of the Department of Defense and efforts
taken to minimize duplication of efforts and to maximize
efficiency and effectiveness in mission execution. The first
such assessment would be required not later than January 1,
2020, with subsequent assessments to occur not less frequently
than once every 5 years thereafter.
The provision would also require the Secretary to report,
not later than January 1, 2020, on the total number of civilian
and military employees assigned or employed in the Office of
the Chief, National Guard Bureau, and on the National Guard
Joint Staff, together with a recommendation on the number of
employees necessary to execute the missions and functions of
the National Guard Bureau and National Guard Joint Staff.
The provision would repeal certain outdated provisions of
law and would further amend sections 143, 155, 7014, 8014, and
9014 of title 10, United States Code, to provide modest
increases in the statutory caps on the number of personnel that
may be employed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Staff, and the Offices of the Secretary of the Army,
Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force,
respectively.
Finally, the provision would clarify that the requirements
of section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), relative to Major
Headquarters Activity spending, sunset at the end of fiscal
year 2019.
Responsibility of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment for Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative
Agreement Program (sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would make the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment,
rather than the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency,
responsible for the Procurement Technical Assistance
Cooperative Agreement Program.
Return to Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense of
responsibility for business systems and related matters (sec.
903)
The committee recommends a provision that would return the
responsibilities for business systems from the Chief Management
Officer back to the Chief Information Officer and would realign
the Chief Data Officer to report to the Chief Information
Officer instead of the Chief Management Officer. This
realignment would facilitate the Department of Defense's
implementation of the Foundations for Evidence-Based
Policymaking Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-435) and ensure the
Chief Data Officer's visibility into all data across the
enterprise. The provision would further explicitly provide that
the Chief Data Officer has access to all Department of Defense
data.
Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy and Deputy Principal Cyber
Advisor (sec. 904)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
designation of a general or flag officer of the Armed Forces to
serve within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy as the Senior Military Advisor for Cyber Policy and,
concurrently, as the Deputy Principal Cyber Advisor. As a
result of the level of responsibility and complexity of the
duties associated with these functions, the committee
recommends that the military individual fulfilling these two
roles be designated from among qualified commissioned regular
officers of the Armed Forces in the grade of major general or
rear admiral. The committee believes that Department of Defense
cyber policy is uniquely advanced through the coupling of
civilian and military expertise at the Office of the Secretary
of Defense-level. Finally, the committee recognizes the
critical work of the Principal Cyber Advisor, the Deputy
Principal Cyber Advisor, and its cross-functional team and
believes that this effective model should be sustained.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
any reorganization to the Department of Defense (DOD) that
would impact the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) until the
Chief Management Officer provides to the congressional defense
committees a report assessing the impacts of such an
organizational change. Specifically, the report shall assess at
a minimum the following options: (1) Transferring the SCO so
that the Director of the SCO reports directly to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; (2)
Maintaining the current arrangement such that the Director of
the SCO reports directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering; and (3) Transferring the SCO to the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The report should include the justification for any
organizational changes and detail how specific changes would
impact SCO's ability to execute its traditional missions,
including: (1) Responding to combatant commanders' critical
needs, (2) Augmenting cross-DOD efforts with respect to
developing strategic capabilities; (3) Developing new and
innovative ways to counter advanced threats; and (4) Partnering
with and responding to senior leadership across the DOD.

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

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 3016(a), 5016(a), and 8016(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to require that each military department maintain
an assistant secretary for energy, installations, and
environment.
The committee believes that any person nominated for these
positions should have relevant experience in the energy,
installations, and environment portfolio.

Repeal of conditional designation of Explosive Ordnance Disposal Corps
as a basic branch of the Army (sec. 912)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), which established the
conditional designation of explosive ordnance disposal as a
basic branch of the Army.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Exclusion from limitations on personnel in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and Department of Defense headquarters of fellows
appointed under the John S. McCain Defense Fellows Program
(sec. 921)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 932(f)(3) of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) to
stipulate that an individual appointed to a fellowship under
this section shall not count against the limitation on the
number of Office of the Secretary of Defense personnel in
section 143 of title 10, United States Code, or any similar
limitation in law on the number of personnel in headquarters of
the Department of Defense.

Report on resources to implement the civilian casualty policy of the
Department of Defense (sec. 922)

The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the resources necessary to
fulfill the requirements of section 936 of the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) over the future years defense plan.

Items of Special Interest

Cross-functional teams

The committee notes that section 911 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) expressly empowered and directed Department of Defense
(DOD) leadership to establish cross-functional teams (CFTs) and
that the law defined the characteristics and authorities common
to such teams. The committee understands, however, that the DOD
has not established a single CFT under that law and that it is
severely delinquent in meeting the provision's requirements and
milestones.
Although DOD components have established various task
forces and working groups, including the Close Combat Lethality
Task Force and the Protecting Critical Technology Task Force,
none of these entities were established under section 911
authorities. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide the committee, not later than February 1,
2020, an explanation as to why section 911 authorities have not
been utilized to date.

Remote and isolated research and testing installations

The committee recommends that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering and the Chief Management
Officer jointly establish a working group to identify and
develop solutions to immediate and long-term programmatic
challenges facing remote and isolated installations. The effort
should be focused on research and testing organizations and
address issues that would have negative impacts on innovation,
streamlined and successful development and acquisition efforts,
and support for National Defense Strategy goals. This working
group should provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees no later than December 1, 2019.
The committee notes that a number of organizations that
perform critical research and testing missions are located on
installations that are remote and isolated from population
centers and have limited access to goods, services, and
technical talent. For example, the committee notes that both
the Army's Dugway Proving Grounds and the Navy's Atlantic
Undersea Test and Evaluation Center face these types of
challenges while attempting to maintain robust test
capabilities to support the National Defense Strategy. Remote
and isolated installations face challenges in maintaining
adequate government and support contractor personnel and
capabilities and often experience negative impacts when
attempting to implement government-wide, Department of Defense-
wide, or service-wide policies and regulations that are
designed for more traditional and larger installations and not
always appropriate or applicable to the unique circumstances of
these smaller installations.

Secretariat for Special Operations

The committee strongly supports continued efforts to
implement section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to enable greater
oversight of and advocacy for special operations forces by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC). While important progress has
been made in implementing these reforms, the Department has
been unable to fully realize the Congress' intent for the ASD
SOLIC to act as the ``service secretary-like'' civilian
counterpart to the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command
more than 2 years after the law's passage.
In particular, the committee is concerned that the
Department of Defense has failed to establish clear timelines
for the implementation of tasks necessary to fully implement
the ASD SOLIC reforms. Additionally, the committee is concerned
that sufficient efforts have not been made to update and
clarify Departmental guidance to accurately reflect the ASD
SOLIC's enhanced role with respect to the oversight and
advocacy of special operations forces.
Lastly, while the committee is encouraged by efforts to
more adequately staff the ASD SOLIC Secretariat for Special
Operations, the committee is concerned that new personnel
actions are not adequately tied to a strategic workforce plan,
potentially leading to the hiring of staff that may not have
the requisite experience or may be serving only in a temporary
capacity. The committee is also concerned that the title and
grade of personnel leading the day-to-day operations of the
Secretariat for Special Operations may not be commensurate with
their responsibilities.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department to
address these issues expeditiously and would welcome
legislative or other proposals to remove any remaining
challenges to full implementation of the ASD SOLIC reforms.

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of fiscal
year 2020 funds authorized in division A of this Act to
unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal
reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military
personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar
limitation in this provision.

Modification of required elements of annual reports on emergency and
extraordinary expenses of the Department of Defense (sec. 1002)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 127 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the
annual reporting requirement.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 222a of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Services and combatant commands to submit separate lists of
unfunded priorities for military construction. The provision
would require the lists to be in priority order.

Prohibition on delegation of responsibility for submittal to Congress
of Out-Year Unconstrained Total Munitions Requirements and Out-
Year Inventory numbers (sec. 1004)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 222c of title 10, United States Code, by prohibiting
the chief of staff of each of the Services from delegating the
munitions reporting requirement established in that section
outside the service concerned. The committee notes that, for
the fiscal year 2020 budget submission, the Joint Staff and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
delivered the required report on behalf of the Services,
despite statutory requirements, and as a result have failed to
meet the requirement in a timely manner.

Element in annual reports on the Financial Improvement and Audit
Remediation Plan on activities with respect to classified
programs (sec. 1005)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 240b(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to include
audit results and activities for classified programs in the
Financial Improvement and Audit Remediation Plan. The plan
shall remain unclassified and include a classified annex, if
required.

Modification of semiannual briefings on the consolidated corrective
action plan of the Department of Defense for financial
management information (sec. 1006)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 240b(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to track the costs of
the audit corrective action plans.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to rename the
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Account in recognition that
it is funded by appropriations.

Subtitle B--Counterdrug Activities

Modification of authority to support a unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
most recently amended by section 1011 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91), to
modify authorized assistance to the Government of Colombia to
address the emergence of new threats.
The committee strongly supports the partnership between the
United States and Colombia and notes the remarkable security
gains that the Government of Colombia has achieved over nearly
2 decades and its ongoing contributions to regional security.
The committee believes that an enduring security relationship
between the United States and Colombia is essential to
sustaining and building on these gains and supporting the
successful implementation of the 2016 peace accord. However,
the committee notes with concern reports of record high yields
of coca and the emergence of other illegally armed groups,
ranging from terrorist organizations to drug trafficking
organizations, that threaten peace, stability, and security in
Colombia and the broader region. In light of the continuing
threat posed by drug trafficking and illegal armed groups, it
is imperative that the Department of Defense's (DOD's)
authorities to engage with and provide support to the
Government of Colombia are reflective of the evolving nature of
the security environment. In particular, the splintering of
armed groups since the 2016 peace agreement poses challenges to
the applicability of the existing DOD authority to provide
support to the Government of Colombia. The committee intends
for the modifications contained in this provision to ensure
that United States support to the Government of Colombia
remains relevant and effective against these serious and
evolving threats. Further, the committee notes that the
modifications contained in this provision would not alter the
prohibition of U.S. persons' engaging in combat operations.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
2 years the authority established in section 1022(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public
Law 108-136).

Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Modification of authority to purchase vessels using funds in National
Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1016)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2218(f)(3) of title 10, United States Code, in
subparagraph (E) by striking ``10 new sealift vessels'' and
inserting ``10 new sealift vessels, auxiliary vessels, or a
combination of such vessels''.

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
designation of a Senior Technical Authority for each class of
naval vessels.
The committee notes the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) published a report on June 6, 2018, titled ``Navy
Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for
Future Investments'' (GAO-18-238SP), which assessed Navy
shipbuilding performance over the past 10 years and concluded
that ``[the Navy] has received $24 billion more in funding than
originally planned but has 50 fewer ships in its inventory
today, as compared to the goals it first established in [2007.]
. . . Ship costs exceed[ed] estimates by over $11 billion
during this time frame.''
This report found that lead ships in new classes of naval
vessels regularly failed to meet expectations. For the 8 most
recently delivered lead combatant ships (CVN-78, DDG-1000, LCS-
1, LCS-2, LHA-6, LPD-17, SSN-774, and SSN-775), the report
found that: a total of $8 billion more than the initial budget
was required to construct these ships; each lead ship
experienced cost growth of at least 10 percent, and 3 lead
ships exceeded their initial budgets by 80 percent or more;
each lead ship was delivered to the fleet at least 6 months
late with 5 lead ships delayed by more than 2 years; and most
lead ships had dozens of uncorrected deficiencies when accepted
by the Navy.
As this report highlights, a key step in successful
shipbuilding programs is technology development: the maturation
of key technologies into actual system prototypes and
demonstration of them in a realistic environment prior to the
detailed design of the lead ship. This type of technology
maturation was not performed effectively on the CVN-78, DDG-
1000, LCS-1, LCS-2, and LPD-17 programs.
The committee also notes that the Navy is planning the
largest fleet expansion in over 30 years with several costly
and complex acquisitions planned for the coming years,
including the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines and
new classes of guided missile frigates and fast attack
submarines. The Chief of Naval Operations has also called for
the first Large Surface Combatant, Large Unmanned Surface
Vehicle, Future Small Auxiliary, and Future Large Auxiliary
(CHAMP) to each be on contract in 2023. Additionally, large and
extra large undersea vehicles are projected to transition from
research and development to procurement within the next decade.
While recognizing the importance of modernizing the fleet
to face growing threats, the committee finds the Comptroller
General's findings to be compelling and believes that
additional actions are needed to improve shipbuilding cost,
schedule, and performance outcomes, particularly of lead ships.
If such outcomes are not improved, the committee is
concerned that the trends of the past 10 years will continue
and that the Navy battle force could lack the capability and
capacity necessary to prevail in great power competition as
described in the National Defense Strategy.
Accordingly, this provision would establish a Senior
Technical Authority (STA) for each class of naval vessels. Each
STA would be responsible for establishing, monitoring, and
approving technical standards, tools, and processes for the
class of naval vessels for which he or she is designated under
this section in conformance with applicable Department of
Defense and Department of the Navy policies, requirements,
architectures, and standards.
In addition, beginning on October 1, 2020, funds authorized
to be appropriated for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, could
not be obligated on the lead vessel in a new class of naval
vessels until the Secretary of the Navy has submitted a
certification containing information from the STA on such class
of vessels.
The committee recognizes that implementation of this
provision may require additional government employees,
including senior executives, in the Naval Systems Engineering
Directorate of the Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 05) and would
support such increases as may be warranted.

Permanent authority for sustaining operational readiness of Littoral
Combat Ships on extended deployment (sec. 1018)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8680 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the
Secretary of the Navy with additional flexibility to maintain
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) by allowing government or
contractor personnel to conduct maintenance on deployed LCS
vessels regardless of ship location.
This provision would codify the authorities successfully
employed in a pilot program authorized by section 1025 of the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
The pilot program was conducted to evaluate maintenance
options for LCS vessels on extended deployments from December
2014 to September 2016. The Navy's assessment of the pilot
program, which was submitted in a March 2017 report to the
Congress, stated, ``Based on the pilot program results, cost
savings are expected to be notable. Even more importantly, the
flexibility to provide timely maintenance in support of
schedule changes and mission execution is crucial to long-term
success of the LCS Fleet[.]''
The committee concurs with the Navy's assessment of the
pilot program and recommends codifying the associated
authorities in title 10, United States Code.

Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 1021)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2020, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to transfer or release
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the United States.

Extension of prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred
from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1022)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until December 31, 2020, the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense to construct or modify
facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred
from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of
individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to certain countries (sec. 1023)

Extension of prohibition on use of funds to close or relinquish control
of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1024)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
until fiscal year 2020 the prohibition on the use of funds
provided to the Department of Defense: (1) To close or abandon
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo; (2) To relinquish
control of Guantanamo Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or (3) To
implement a material modification to the Treaty between the
United States of America and Cuba signed at Washington, D.C.,
on May 29, 1934, which modification would constructively close
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay.

Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval
Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States temporarily
for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1025)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for
emergency or critical medical treatment not available at
Guantanamo.

Chief Medical Officer at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba (sec. 1026)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
establishment of a Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to conduct oversight of
medical care provided to individuals detained at Guantanamo to
ensure that such medical care meets the standard of care as
defined in the provision. The CMO would report directly to the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and hold a
grade not below that of colonel, or captain in the Navy. The
CMO would make medical determinations, including: (1) Decisions
regarding assessment, diagnosis, and treatment; and (2)
Determinations concerning medical accommodations to living
conditions and operating procedures for detention facilities.
In the event of the commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo's
declination to follow a determination of the CMO, the provision
would require the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to jointly resolve the
matter of such determination within 7 days of receipt of the
notification of such declination. Additionally, the provision
would authorize the CMO to secure access from the Department of
Defense to any individual, information, or assistance that the
CMO considers necessary to carry out the duties of the
position.
The committee believes that detainees at Guantanamo should
receive timely access to appropriate medical care. The
committee is concerned that medical providers at Guantanamo may
not have access to information in certain medical records that
would inform diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions of
detainees. The committee believes that this provision would
help to ensure that detainees receive timely assessment,
diagnosis, and treatment of their medical conditions.

Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

Clarification of authority of military commissions under chapter 47A of
title 10, United States Code, to punish contempt (sec. 1031)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code,
to permit a judge of the United States Court of Military
Commission Review or a military judge detailed to a military
commission to punish contempt. The provision would also provide
that the punishment for contempt may not exceed confinement for
30 days, a fine of $1,000, or both and would establish the
conditions under which punishment for contempt is reviewable.

Comprehensive Department of Defense policy on collective self-defense
(sec. 1032)

The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense to promulgate a comprehensive
written policy, detailing all aspects of the Department of
Defense's approach to authorizing and providing collective
self-defense by any member or unit of the U.S. Armed Forces to
designated foreign nationals, their facilities, and their
property, and to provide such comprehensive written policy to
the congressional defense committees.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
defines collective self-defense as the defense of designated
non-U.S. military forces, irregular partner forces, and/or
their property from a hostile act or demonstrated hostile
intent. Furthermore, the committee understands that the
Department views collective self-defense as an extension of
U.S. unit self-defense, regardless of whether U.S. personnel or
facilities are threatened themselves.
The committee unquestionably supports the inherent right of
U.S. military forces to defend themselves whenever and wherever
they are deployed. However, the committee seeks greater
understanding of the legal and policy basis for the provision
of collective self-defense to designated foreign nationals,
their facilities, and their property. This is especially true
in situations in which U.S. personnel and facilities are not
directly threatened. The committee believes that such issues
merit detailed review by the Department and the promulgation of
a comprehensive written policy to ensure appropriate clarity.

Oversight of Department of Defense execute orders (sec. 1033)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, except in extraordinary circumstances, to
provide the congressional defense committees with an execute
order approved by the Secretary of Defense or a combatant
commander for review within 30 days of receiving a written
request from the Chairman or Ranking Member of any such
committee.

Prohibition on ownership or trading of stocks in certain companies by
Department of Defense officers and employees (sec. 1034)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
Department of Defense officials who participated personally and
substantially in an acquisition valued in excess of $10,000,000
and occupy a position on the Executive Schedule, are a member
of the Senior Executive Service, or are a General or Flag
Officer or who served as program manager, deputy program
manager, procuring contracting officer, administrative
contracting officer, source selection authority, member of a
source selection evaluation board, or chief of a financial or
technical evaluation team for a contract in excess of $10.0
million from owning or trading a publicly traded stock of a
company that, during the preceding calendar year, received more
than $1.0 billion in revenue from the Department of Defense,
including through contracts with the Department.
The provision would further provide that no officer or
employee of the Department of Defense may own or trade a
publicly traded stock of a company that is a contractor or
subcontractor of the Department, if the Standards of Conduct
Office of the Office of the General Counsel of the Department
of Defense determines that the value of the stock may be
directly or indirectly influenced by any official act of that
officer or employee.
Any official who knowingly fails to comply with these
requirements would be subject to administrative action by the
Secretary of Defense. The definition of publicly traded stock
does not included a widely-held investment fund, for purposes
of this provision.

Policy regarding the transition of data and applications to the cloud
(sec. 1035)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief Information and Chief Data Officers of the Department of
Defense to develop and implement a policy relating to the
transition of data and applications to the cloud under the
Department's cloud strategy.

Modernization of inspection authorities applicable to the National
Guard and extension of inspection authority to the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau (sec. 1036)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 105 of title 32, United States Code, to authorize the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau to conduct inspections to
determine whether units and members of the Army National Guard
and Air Force National Guard comply with Federal law and policy
applicable to the National Guard.

Enhancement of authorities on forfeiture of Federal benefits by the
National Guard (sec. 1037)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 108 of title 32, United States Code, to provide that
the availability of Federal funds provided to the National
Guard of individual States is contingent upon compliance with
Federal law and policy applicable to the National Guard. The
provision would also authorize the President to withdraw
Federal recognition of National Guard units and members for
failure to comply with Federal law and policy and would
authorize the President to bar units and individuals from
receiving Federal funds if the unit or individuals fail to
comply with Federal law and policy.

Modernization of authorities on property and fiscal officers of the
National Guard (sec. 1038)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 708 of title 32, United States Code, to require the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, subject to the approval of
the secretary of the military department concerned, to assign,
designate, or detail property and fiscal officers for each
State, each territory, and the District of Columbia.

Limitation on placement by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness of work with federally funded research and
development centers (sec. 1039)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness from
placing any work with a federally funded research and
development center (FFRDC) until a report containing a list of
all studies, reports, and other analyses being undertaken for
the Under Secretary is submitted to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Federally funded research and development centers are
closely monitored by the Congress due to their unique access to
sensitive, pre-decisional government information. Every year,
the Department of Defense must submit a report outlining the
number of staff years of technical effort and funding allocated
to each FFRDC. In fiscal year 2017, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness spent in excess of $50
million on FFRDC products.
In performing its oversight role over the Department of
Defense, the committee frequently receives pre-decisional,
sensitive, and confidential information. For hardware
acquisition, the committee reviews analyses of alternatives and
requirements documents to determine whether a particular
acquisition strategy is appropriate. For personnel management,
the committee is entitled to similar information related to
assessments of possible policy decisions.
The committee emphasizes the continued importance of FFRDC
analyses. The limitation included in this provision is not
intended to harm or otherwise threaten any particular FFRDC.

Termination of requirement for Department of Defense facility access
clearances for joint ventures composed of previously-cleared
entities (sec. 1040)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the requirement for joint ventures that are composed entirely
of entities that already have been granted facility clearances
to obtain an additional clearance for the venture.

Designation of Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Ports (sec. 1041)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Commanding General of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard, and the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees
evaluating potential sites for one or more strategic ports in
the Arctic region. The provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense to designate one or more ports as
Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Ports not later than 90
days after the submission of the report.

Extension of National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
(sec. 1042)

The committee recommends a provision that would delay the
termination of the National Security Commission on Artificial
Intelligence to March 1, 2021. The provision also modifies the
due date of the initial report to not later than August 1,
2019, requires two interim reports that shall be submitted not
later than December 1, 2019, and December 1, 2020, and requires
a final report that shall be submitted not later than March 1,
2021.

Authority to transfer funds for Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup (sec. 1043)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to transfer to the Secretary of State, for
use by the United States Agency for International Development,
funds to be used for the Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup.

Limitation on use of funds to house children separated from parents
(sec. 1044)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to
house a child separated from a parent.

Subtitle F--Studies and Reports

Modification of annual reporting requirements on defense manpower (sec.
1051)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 115a of title 10, United States Code, to rename, change
the due date of, and modify the elements of the Defense
Manpower Requirements Report. The provision would also require
that the (renamed) Defense Manpower Profile Report be delivered
to the Congress each year by April 1. Additionally, the
provision would repeal reporting requirements related to
contractor personnel, major military force unit justifications,
support and overhead manpower functions, overseas manpower,
medical personnel, and the military technician program.
Finally, the provision would set separate due dates for
reporting requirements related to major Department of Defense
headquarters activities and the diversity of the Armed Forces.

Report on Department of Defense efforts to implement a force planning
process in support of implementation of the 2018 National
Defense Strategy (sec. 1052)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to provide a report, not
later than February 1, 2020, on Department of Defense efforts
to institute a force planning process that supports the
implementation of the National Defense Strategy.
The National Defense Strategy asserts that the U.S.
military advantage with respect to strategic competition with
the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation has
been eroding. The strategy concludes that the Department must
pursue ``urgent change at significant scale'' to avoid a joint
force that is irrelevant to the threats it will face. The
Department must make difficult choices to prioritize rapid
adaptation of the joint force to meet these challenges.
Furthermore, the lack of a rigorous analytical force planning
process that includes joint analytical capability makes it
difficult to overcome the interests of the Services in
protecting their force structure equities.
Key products of the force planning process include concepts
of operations that the Services can use to help evaluate their
individual force structure requirements. The National Defense
Strategy Commission report highlights that ``[o]perational
concepts constitute an essential link between strategic
objectives and the capability and budgetary priorities needed
to advance them.'' The commission concluded, ``Unfortunately,
the innovative operational concepts we need do not currently
appear to exist.''
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office made three recommendations in a March 2019 report titled
``Revised Analytic Approach Needed to Support Force Structure
Decision-Making'' (GAO-19-385) to improve the Department's
analytic approach to force planning: (1) Determine the analytic
products needed at the right level of detail; (2) The Secretary
of Defense should ensure that specific guidance requiring the
Services to explore a range of innovative force structure
approaches is given; and (3) The Secretary of Defense should
establish an approach for conducting joint analyses in addition
to current disparate service-specific analyses.
The committee is concerned that an anemic force planning
process that does not provide a rigorous analytical basis to
evaluate and prioritize force structure approaches will at
worst preclude successful implementation of the National
Defense Strategy and will at best make the process inefficient.

Extension of annual reports on civilian casualties in connection with
United States military operations (sec. 1053)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2025, the reporting requirement
established by section 1057 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).

Report on joint force plan for implementation of strategies of the
Department of Defense for the Arctic (sec. 1054)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with Secretaries of the
military departments, to submit a joint force plan for
implementing the Department of Defense's December 2016 Report
to Congress on the Strategy to Protect United States National
Security Interests in the Arctic Region and the updated Arctic
strategy to improve and enhance joint operations, which was
mandated in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232).

Report on use of Northern Tier bases in implementation of Arctic
strategy of the United States (sec. 1055)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the use of bases in northern latitudes,
including Northern Tier bases, for implementing the
recommendations in the December 2016 ``Report to Congress on
Strategy to Protect United States National Security Interests
in the Arctic Region'' and the updated Arctic strategy required
to be submitted to the congressional defense committees under
section 1071 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232).

Report on the Department of Defense plan for mass-casualty disaster
response operations in the Arctic (sec. 1056)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to submit a report on the plan of the
Department of Defense for assisting mass-casualty disaster
response operations in the Arctic.

Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation of retired
general or flag officers by foreign governments for Emoluments
Clause purposes (sec. 1057)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 908 of title 37, United States Code, to require the
Secretaries of the military departments to submit annually to
appropriate committees and Members of Congress a joint report
enumerating each approval issued during the preceding year for
a retired general or flag officer to accept civil employment or
compensation for which the consent of Congress is required by
the last paragraph of Section 9 of Article I of the
Constitution, related to acceptance of emoluments, offices, or
titles from a foreign government. The provision would require
the first report to cover the 5-year period preceding the year
in which the report is submitted.

Transmittal to Congress of requests for assistance received by the
Department of Defense from other departments (sec. 1058)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to transmit electronically requests for
assistance received from the Department of Homeland Security or
the Department of Health and Human Services to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than 7 calendar days after receiving
those requests. The provision also requires the Secretary to
transmit any responses to such requests.

Semiannual report on Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency (sec. 1059)

The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not less frequently than semi-annually until the Director of
the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)
determines that a steady-state level has been achieved for the
Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Agency, the Director
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
inventory and timeliness metrics relating to such facility. The
committee notes that elsewhere in this Act is a recommended
increase of $10.0 million to support the Consolidated
Adjudication Facility of the DCSA.

Comptroller General of the United States report on post-government
employment of former Department of Defense officials (sec.
1060)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to initiate a review,
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, updating the information and findings contained in the
Government Accountability Office report titled ``Defense
Contracting: Post-Government Employment of Former DOD Officials
Needs Greater Transparency'' (GAO-08-485).

Subtitle G--Treatment of Contaminated Water Near Military Installations

Treatment of contaminated water near military installations (secs.
1071-1075)

The committee recommends a series of provisions (secs.
1071-1075) that would allow the Secretaries of the military
departments to provide uncontaminated water sources or to treat
water contaminated with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances if the water is used for agricultural purposes
leading to products destined for human consumption.
Additionally, these provisions would authorize the Secretary of
the Air Force to acquire real property that has shown signs of
contamination from perfluorooctanoic and perfluorooctane
sulfonate.

Subtitle H--Other Matters

Revision to authorities relating to mail service for members of the
Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilians overseas (sec.
1081)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3401 of title 39, United States Code, to clarify that
Active-Duty servicemembers and Department of Defense civilian
employees providing support to military operations are
authorized to mail personal correspondence at no cost when
deployed for a contingency operation in an area designated by
the President. The provision would also extend the free mail
program to all hospitalized servicemembers wounded in a
designated area. Finally, the provision would allow certain
mail between military post offices or from a military post
office to a point of entry into the United States to be
transported by surface shipment.

Access to and use of military post offices by United States citizens
employed overseas by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who
perform functions in support of military operations of the
Armed Forces (sec. 1082)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 406 of title 39, United States Code, to permit the
Secretary of Defense to authorize the use of military post
offices in locations outside the United States by citizens of
the United States who are employed by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and who perform functions in support of the Armed
Forces.

Guarantee of residency for spouses of members of uniformed services
(sec. 1083)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Title
VI of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (Public Law 108-189;
50 U.S.C. 4021 et seq.) to allow military spouses to use the
same residences as their servicemembers for any purpose,
regardless of the date on which the marriage occurred.

Extension of requirement for briefings on the national biodefense
strategy (sec. 1084)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1086(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) by extending to March 1,
2025, the requirement for annual briefings on the status and
implementation plan of the National Biodefense Strategy.
The committee recognizes the broad spectrum of stakeholders
in the biodefense sector and directs the Secretary of Defense
to solicit and consider input from these stakeholders as it
develops and implements the National Biodefense Strategy.
Stakeholders include private industry partners responsible for
the development and production of medical countermeasures,
experts with relevant expertise in biological and emerging
infectious diseases, State and local public health departments,
and other organizations, as appropriate.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct a review of Department of Defense
investments in biodefense. This review shall include assessment
of historical funding levels, an analysis of investments in
research and development, and an analysis of investments in
procurement. The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing
on the preliminary findings to the congressional defense
committees not later than March 1, 2020, with a final report to
be provided at a mutually agreed upon time.

Extension of National Commission on Military Aviation Safety (sec.
1085)

The committee recommends a provision that would delay the
due date of the report of the National Commission on Military
Aviation Safety by 9 months to December 1, 2020. The committee
believes that the Secretary of Defense should take all
appropriate actions to increase aircraft maintenance
availability and pilot training and proficiency to ensure the
highest levels of flight safety. The committee is concerned
that the current due date would not afford the commission the
time needed to fully examine and make recommendations regarding
military mishaps.

Items of Special Interest

Allocation of Military Forces

The committee notes, and in general concurs with, the
concerns of the 2018 National Defense Strategy Commission,
which was charged with reviewing the National Defense Strategy
and making recommendations to Congress. Specifically, the
Commission raised significant concerns about the current state
of civilian-military relationships, particularly in the
decision-making process for allocating military forces. As the
Commission states, ``Put bluntly, allocating priority-and
allocating forces-across theaters of warfare is not solely a
military matter. It is an inherently political-military task,
decision authority for which is the proper competency and
responsibility of America's civilian leaders.'' The Commission
further recommends that, ``It is critical that DoD--and
Congress--reverse the unhealthy trend in which decision-making
is drifting away from civilian leaders on issues of national
importance.''
The principle of civilian control of the Armed Forces is
the bedrock of civilian-military relations, and it is one of
the defining tenets of our democracy. While this committee has
previously supported enhancing the responsibilities and
functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we
underscore that the Chairman serves in an advisory role to the
President and the Secretary of Defense and remains outside the
chain of command. Therefore, the committee restates that it is
appropriate and necessary that the decision-making authority
for force allocation resides with the civilian leadership of
the Department of Defense and notes the requirement elsewhere
in this Act to reestablish a more robust and analytically sound
force planning process to support that decision-making.

Assessment of the Requirement for a Strategic Arctic Port

The Committee notes that the report titled ``Department of
Defense Assessment of Requirement for a Strategic Arctic
Port,'' which was mandated in section 1095 of the Fiscal Year
2017 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 114-840)
and delivered to the congressional defense committees in early
2018, concluded that, ``existing [Department of Defense]
infrastructure in the [Arctic] region is adequate to meet its
current operational requirements.'' The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to update the committee on whether the
conclusion of this report has changed.

Assignment of responsibility for the Arctic to a deputy assistant
secretary of defense

The committee notes that the strategic importance of the
Arctic continues to increase as the United States and other
countries recognize the military significance of the Arctic's
sea lanes and choke points and its potential for power
projection into multiple regions. The committee also recognizes
that the Department of Defense's mission requirements in the
Arctic are expected to grow, as increases in human and maritime
activity bring heightened risk of maritime accidents, oil
spills, illegal fishing, harvesting of other natural resources
in the exclusive economic zone of the United States, and other
potential threats or challenges to United States sovereignty.
Therefore, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of
Defense to assign to an existing deputy assistant secretary of
defense the primary responsibility for the Arctic region, in
order to coordinate the formation of Arctic defense policy with
relevant Department of Defense entities.
The committee also notes that a similar request was made in
the Senate report accompanying S. 2987 (S. Rept. 115-262) of
the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019; the Department has yet to act on this
request.

Briefing on civilian casualties

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide,
not later than August 1, 2019, a briefing to the Senate Armed
Services Committee on the most recent annual report on civilian
casualties in connection with United States military operations
that has been submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1057 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019
(Public Law 115-91), as most recently amended by section 1062
of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), which shall include, at
a minimum, a discussion of the roles of manned and unmanned
aircraft in operations that were confirmed to have resulted in
civilian casualties and lessons learned from such operations.

Combatant command pandemic planning

The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than March 31, 2021, on efforts at each
combatant command for pandemic planning. This report shall be
coordinated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
as well as other appropriate federal agencies that the
combatant commanders deem appropriate.

Eliminating delays in initiating support to Government Accountability
Office audits

The ability of the Congress to conduct effective oversight
of federal agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD),
is enhanced through the timely completion of Government
Accountability Office (GAO) audits. Longstanding GAO protocols,
coordinated with the DOD and other federal agencies and updated
most recently in 2019, establish general principles governing
GAO's relationships with audited agencies. These protocols
require agencies to assist the GAO in scheduling an initial
meeting, called an entrance conference, within 14 calendar days
of receiving notice of a new GAO audit. This initial meeting
allows the GAO to communicate the initial objectives for its
audit, and enables keys agencies to task points of contact to
support GAO's work. The DOD has not been meeting the protocol
target for the timely conduct of entrance conferences, and a
number of entrance conferences and the associated audits have
been unduly delayed.
Therefore, for a 1-year period, beginning on October 1,
2019, the committee directs the GAO and the DOD to provide
quarterly updates to congressional defense committees on the
extent to which entrance conferences with the DOD are being
scheduled in accordance with GAO protocols and held in a timely
manner.
GAO's update shall include the following information for
the prior 3-month period: (1) The number of new GAO audits for
which the GAO requested an entrance conference with the DOD
during the period; (2) The unique identifier for each audit for
which an entrance conference was not scheduled within 14
calendar days of the DOD's being notified of GAO's request for
an entrance conference; and (3) The unique identifier for each
audit for which an entrance conference was not held within 30
calendar days of the DOD's being notified of the request for an
entrance conference.
The GAO shall provide this report to the congressional
defense committees and the DOD within 30 calendar days of the
end of each 3-month period. The DOD shall deliver a written
response to the committees and the GAO not later than 15
calendar days after the GAO provides its report to the DOD.
DOD's response shall include the following information: (1)
Of the entrance conferences that the GAO identified as not
having been scheduled within 14 calendar days or not having
been held within 30 calendar days, which entrance conferences,
by unique GAO audit identifier, have since been scheduled and/
or held; (2) The factors that contributed to delays in
scheduling and holding entrance conferences; and (3) Actions
the DOD has taken or plans to take to address factors that
contributed to delays and to ensure future adherence to the
established timeframes for entrance conferences.

Evaluation of modeling and simulation used for force planning and
theater operational requirements

The committee notes that the Department of Defense uses a
large number and variety of computer models and simulations to
support decision-making about force structure, resource
allocation, war gaming, and priority weapons platforms and
technologies to develop and deploy in support of likely
operational scenarios. These models are used to develop
information to brief decision makers, including the Congress,
about, for example, the current state of the balance of forces
in the Pacific and European theaters, the outcomes of likely
war scenarios, and the need for investments in advanced
technologies and new warfighting capabilities.
The committee is concerned that the quality, accuracy, and
dependability of these models, given their important role in
decision making processes, has not been adequately validated.
The committee notes that technical and engineering computer
models used to develop systems such as body armor and missiles
are rigorously verified and validated for veractiy of
assumptions and technical accuracy using real world data. Other
models, such as those used in the financial sector, are
developed using expertise from a variety of disciplines,
including economics, sociology, and advanced mathematics. The
committee is concerned that the models used by organizations
including the Joint Staff, Office of Net Assessment, war
colleges, and service-level planning entities are simplistic by
comparison and not subject to the same level of scrutiny.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to establish an independent team of academic and industry
modeling and subject matter experts to review the quality of
modeling and simulation used for force planning, war gaming,
resource allocation, and other senior leader decision-making
associated with implementation of the National Defense
Strategy. The team shall review the technical quality of models
currently in use, including their ability to simulate as
required by application: physics and engineering, socio-
economic impact, readiness, global financial markets, politics,
and other relevant inputs and outputs. The team shall assess
the quality of these models and make recommendations for
investments or policy changes needed to enhance and
continuously validate current and future modeling and
simulation tools employed to enable senior-level decision-
making.
The committee directs the Secretary to support the team
with expertise as needed from the Joint Staff, Office of Net
Assessment, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, and other relevant organizations. The Secretary
shall ensure that the team has sufficient resources and access
to all data and records necessary to perform its analysis. The
committee directs the Secretary to deliver a report on the
independent team's assessments and recommendations with any
additional comments, and a specific concurrence or non-
concurrence for each recommendation, to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later
than December 31, 2020.

Information on Defense Spending

The committee notes that past years' appropriations bills
have required recipients of funds from the Departments of
Defense, Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, and
Labor to disclose in statements, press releases, and other
documents that describe projects or programs the total cost of
the activities that were paid for with federal dollars. This
requirement no longer applies to the Department of Defense and
Department of Agriculture. The committee believes this
requirement should again apply to the Department of Defense.
The committee believes that this would ensure transparency in
Department of Defense spending on grants and individual
projects.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees, no later than March 1, 2020, on how the
Department would implement such a requirement.

Public availability of Department of Defense reports required by law

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
required by section 122a of title 10, United States Code, to
ensure that reports are made available to the public, to the
maximum extent practicable, by posting the reports on a
publicly accessible website. Although the committee understands
that exceptions to such posting requirements exist for reports
containing classified or proprietary information, or
information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (Public Law 89-487; 5 U.S.C. 552) the committee
believes that the Department should make at least reasonable
efforts to post all other reports on a publicly accessible
website. Were the Department to demonstrate compliance with
section 122a, the committee would be interested in exploring
means of reducing the administrative burden to the Department
associated with generating and delivering hard copy paper
reports to the committee.

Report on the impacts of continuing resolutions

The committee is concerned by the lack of stability and
predictability associated with the congressional budget and
appropriations process and, specifically, the effect that
Continuing Resolutions (CRs) have on the operations of the
Department of Defense (DOD). While the Department often
identifies anecdotal detrimental effects of CRs, the DOD has
never conducted a comprehensive study that analyzes the exact
damage caused by a CR or series of CRs. Therefore, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives by March 2, 2020, detailing
the impacts of CRs on the DOD.
The report shall, at a minimum, include assessments of how
CRs affect: (1) Operations and activities of the Services; (2)
Operations and activities of the combatant commands; (3)
Acquisition and contracting, including the awarding of new
contracts, obligations, and expenditures; (4) The defense
industrial base; (5) Budgets, with an estimate of the
additional costs to the DOD caused by CRs; and (6) Such other
operations, programs, projects, and activities as the Secretary
considers appropriate in order to provide to the Congress a
comprehensive understanding of the full impacts of CRs.

TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS

Modification of temporary assignments of Department of Defense
employees to a private-sector organization (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1599g(e)(2)(A) of title 10, United State Code, to allow
the Department of Defense to temporarily transfer or reassign
other personnel within the Department to perform the normal
duties and functions of employees who are participating in a
public-private talent exchange.
Modification of number of available appointments for certain agencies
under personnel management authority to attract experts in
science and engineering (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the number of section 1599h billets available to the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by 30, bringing the
total from 100 to 130, and decreasing the number of section
1599h billets available to the laboratories of the military
departments from 40 to 10. Consistent with its support of the
National Defense Strategy, the DARPA is accelerating its work
in hypersonics, artificial intelligence, and microelectronics
and is standing up rapid deployment efforts with other parts of
the Department of Defense (DOD), all of which require bringing
on additional specialized expertise.
The committee believes that it is important for the DOD to
be able to hire experts in science and engineering. Section
1599h of title 10, United States Code, authorizes an expedited
hiring processes in order to attract and quickly employ world-
class experts from the private sector and academia. The
committee understands that allocating additional billets to the
DARPA for this expedited hiring process is critical in
developing emerging technologies critical to the DOD.
One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty
in a combat zone (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
year the discretionary authority of the head of a Federal
agency to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities
comparable to those provided to members of the Foreign Service
to the agency's civilian employees on official duty in a combat
zone.
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for Federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as
most recently amended by section 1104 of the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232), to extend through 2020 the authority of heads of
executive agencies to waive limitations on the aggregate of
basic and premium pay of employees who perform work in an
overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of the
commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that
was formerly in CENTCOM but is now in the area of
responsibility of the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in
support of a military operation or an operation in response to
a declared emergency.
Reimbursement of Federal employees for Federal, State, and local income
taxes incurred during travel, transportation, and relocation
(sec. 1105)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5724b of title 5, United States Code, to authorize
Federal agencies to reimburse individuals associated with the
Federal civil service for all taxes incurred as a result of
travel, transportation, or relocation expenses reimbursed, or
furnished in-kind, by the agency concerned. This provision
would apply to travel, transportation, or relocation expenses
incurred on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Items of Special Interest

Analysis of competitive salary and benefits for STEM professionals
As the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to field
increasingly sophisticated equipment and technology, it is
crucial that the Department build a workforce that is capable
of maximizing the benefit such new technology provides. The
committee recognizes that the military and civilian personnel
required in the future must be well-trained in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Despite this
well-known need, the committee believes that the Department of
Defense is currently poorly suited to attracting personnel who
have the necessary STEM backgrounds. The committee notes that
new authorities to enhance competition for a small set of
technical experts can help balance a compensation mismatch with
the private sector but will not be enough to match private
sector salaries. The committee notes that only the institution
of improved ``total compensation packages,'' including student
loan repayments, flexibility in schedules and work
environments, professional development experiences and
opportunities, and other non-financial rewards, will enable the
government to compete with the private sector and foreign
governments for a limited pool of global STEM talent.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness to coordinate with the
Office of Personnel Management and Bureau of Labor Statistics
to conduct an analysis of compensation for the STEM workforce
required by the Department of Defense. The analysis shall
include: (1) An identification of the categories of STEM
workers the DOD will require to meet the needs of the National
Defense Strategy; (2) A comparison of private-sector
compensation and the compensation provided by the Department of
Defense for the identified STEM worker categories, including an
assessment of the level of compensation necessary to recruit
and retain qualified STEM workers in the DOD; and (3) Policy
options and recommendations to improve DOD's ability to provide
competitive total compensation packages to the STEM workforce.
The committee notes that the Department has a need to hire STEM
experts at the entry-, mid-career, and senior technical and
managerial levels, and thus the analysis should reflect this
diversity of needs and recommend appropriately differentiated
policy options. The Under Secretary shall provide a briefing on
the results of this analysis to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
April 1, 2020.
Appointments of retired members of the Armed Forces to positions in the
Department of Defense
Section 1111 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) repealed the authority of
the Secretaries of the military departments to waive the
restriction on the appointment of retired members of the Armed
Forces to positions in the civil service in the Department of
Defense within 180 days of a servicemember's retirement based
on a state of national emergency. At the time, the committee
was concerned that the Department was abusing the national
security waiver and undermining the long-standing merit
principles upon which the Federal civil service is based.
The committee remains supportive of this change and notes
that the relevant statute provides a straightforward process to
the Secretaries of the military departments in the event that
they wish to hire retired servicemembers within the 180-day
post-retirement timeframe. In particular, section 3326(c) of
title 5, United States Code, outlines the process that the
Secretaries of the military departments must perform to hire a
recently retired servicemember. The assurances provided in this
process guarantee that the best qualified applicant, regardless
of prior military service, is hired into a vacant Department of
Defense civil service position. In short, the Secretaries of
the military departments must demonstrate that minimum
competitive procedures were followed in assessing the pool of
eligible and interested applicants prior to making the
selection.
The committee notes that current law does not prevent
retirees from applying for a position within the 180-day post-
retirement timeframe nor does the law prohibit the hiring of
such individual. The law merely requires that the Secretaries
of the military departments give due consideration to other
qualified and interested candidates prior to making the
selection. The committee urges the Secretaries of the military
departments to make full use of the existing process for hiring
recently retired servicemembers, consistent with applicable
law, policy, and merit principles.
Promulgation and delegation of Department of Defense direct hire
authority
Section 1101 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232)
provided direct hire authority for an extensive number of
Department of Defense (DOD) civil service positions, giving the
Secretary of Defense the necessary tools to expedite hiring of
civilian personnel into positions involving maintenance,
depots, cybersecurity, acquisition, and science, technology,
and engineering.
The authority to hire qualified personnel using this
authority can and should be delegated to Secretaries of the
military departments, directors of Defense Agencies, and
directors of DOD field activities. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to delegate this authority to the lowest
practical level to ensure that the Department achieves the
maximum benefit of this authority while ensuring proper
oversight.

Report on investments in national security human capital

The committee acknowledges the clear recommendations of the
National Defense Strategy, National Defense Strategy Commission
Report, and Defense Innovation Board report emphasizing the
growing need for investment in human capital to support U.S.
national security objectives. Further, the committee
acknowledges and supports the substantial investments made by
the Department of Defense and others to better develop
expertise in critical national security-related career fields.
The committee is eager to identify additional opportunities to
support initiatives with the goal of increasing the number of
Americans who have the skills required to advance national
security.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the
Chief Information Officer, to provide a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than March 1, 2020, that discusses
investments in national security human capital. This report
shall identify and summarize programs that currently exist to
educate and recruit personnel who possess critical skills.
Critical skills include, but are not limited to, those in
cybersecurity, science, technology, engineering, math,
innovation, computer science, and critical languages. The
report shall evaluate the effectiveness of each program and
identify common factors that contribute to programs' successes
or failures to achieve their goals. In addition, this report
shall: (1) Identify opportunities to facilitate, enhance,
streamline, or enable these programs; (2) Assess the
feasibility of those options; and (3) Provide recommendations
to improve the overall outreach and effectiveness of these
programs through reorganization and additional investment or
resources.
Specific attention should be paid to efforts to recruit
recent graduates with the necessary security clearances and
propensity to serve in national security-related fields, in
both uniformed and civilian capacities. In preparing this
report, opportunities to align and enhance ongoing research and
development partnerships or other national security innovation
activities with education and recruiting activities through
consortia or other methods should also be considered.

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS

Subtitle A--Assistance and Training

Extension of support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec.
1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
5 years section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91).
Extension of authority for cross servicing agreements for loan of
personnel protection and personnel survivability equipment in
coalition operations (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for cross-servicing agreements for loan of personnel
protection and survivability equipment in coalition operations
in Afghanistan through 2024.
Two-year extension of program authority for Global Security Contingency
Fund (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
2 years section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note),
relating to the Global Security Contingency Fund.
Modification of reporting requirement for use of funds for security
cooperation programs and activities (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 381(b) of title 10, United States Code, to change the
deadline for submission of the quarterly report on the use of
security cooperation funds from 30 days after the end of each
calendar quarter to 60 days after the end of each calendar
quarter.
Institutional legal capacity building initiative for foreign defense
forces (sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out, consistent with section
332 of title 10, United States Code, a program of institutional
legal capacity building with one or more foreign countries to
enhance the capacity to organize and administer the military
legal institutions of such country or countries. The committee
notes that this provision is consistent with the direction of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) for the Department of Defense to
prioritize institutional capacity building as a critical
component of its security cooperation efforts with foreign
partners.
Department of Defense support for stabilization activities in national
security interest of the United States (sec. 1206)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State and in consultation with the Administrator of the
United States Agency for International Development, to provide
certain support for the stabilization activities of other
Federal agencies.

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
(sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
through December 31, 2021.
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1212)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund for fiscal year 2020. The provision would also authorize
the Secretary of Defense to accept any equipment that was
procured using funds appropriated for the Afghanistan Security
Forces Fund that the security forces of Afghanistan did not
accept. The provision would authorize a portion of the amount
appropriated to the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to be used
for recruiting and integrating women into the Afghan National
Defense and Security Forces.
The committee understands that the Resolute Support Mission
leadership, and in particular the Combined Security Transition
Command--Afghanistan, has conducted significant analysis to
ensure that our advisory efforts, both at the institutional and
the operational levels, are right-sized and effectively aligned
to refocus the advisory effort on strategic capabilities
development. The committee commends the command for this
examination and seeks further information regarding this
realignment and refocus.

Extension of Commanders' Emergency Response Program (sec. 1213)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Afghanistan through December 31, 2020, and would authorize $5.0
million for that program for use during calendar year 2020.

Extension and modification of reimbursement of certain coalition
nations for support provided to United States military
operations (sec. 1214)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for
support provided to United States military operations through
December 31, 2020. The provision would also modify this
authority to eliminate the authorization of these
reimbursements for Pakistan, as reimbursements for Pakistan's
efforts to sustain security along its border with Afghanistan
are already authorized under section 1213 of the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232).

Support for reconciliation activities led by the Government of
Afghanistan (sec. 1215)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to provide support for bottom-up,
Government of Afghanistan-led reconciliation activities.

Sense of Senate on special immigrant visa program for Afghan allies
(sec. 1216)

The committee recommends a provision that would express
support for the special immigrant visa program for Afghan
allies. The committee views this program as vital to the United
States mission in Afghanistan. Afghans routinely risk their
lives to assist United States military and diplomatic personnel
and further U.S. interests. The committee supports making an
additional 4,000 visas available to those eligible for special
immigrant status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note).

Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran

Modification of authority to provide assistance to vetted Syrian groups
(sec. 1221)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) by extending the authority to provide assistance
to vetted Syrian groups through 2020. The provision would
additionally modify the authority to support the temporary
detention and repatriation of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS) foreign terrorist fighters in accordance with the Laws
of Armed Conflict and Geneva Conventions. The provision would
also expand the section 1209 reporting requirement to include:
a description of the training and support provided to
appropriately vetted Syrian groups, a description of U.S.
government stabilization activities being carried out in areas
that these groups control, and a description of U.S. government
support provided to facilitate the repatriation of ISIS foreign
terrorist fighters.

Extension of authority and limitation on use of funds to provide
assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec.
1222)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria through December 31, 2021. The provision would
authorize the use of Overseas Contingency Operations funds to
this effect. However, under this provision, not more than
$375.0 million authorized for such purposes could be obligated
or expended until the Secretary of Defense submits a report to
the congressional defense committees that includes: an
identification of specific units of the Iraqi Security Forces
to be trained and equipped; a plan for normalizing security
assistance to the Iraqi Security Forces under permanent
authorities; an explanation of efforts to transition
responsibility for funding the Iraqi Security Forces to the
Iraqi government in future years; and other matters. The
committee supports a transition towards a normalized and
sustainable bilateral defense relationship with Iraq. The
committee remains strongly committed to Iraq's internal
security and stability and urges the Department of Defense to
continue assistance to the Iraqi government for such purposes,
including through cooperative defense programs.

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec.
1223)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization for the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
through Fiscal Year 2020 and would amend the Office's authority
to support security cooperation activities in Iraq. The
provision would reduce the funds available for this authority
from $45.3 million to $30.0 million. The committee expects the
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq to transition to a
normalized security cooperation office and directs the
department to report on its strategy for implementing this
transition.

Coordinator of United States Government activities and matters in
connection with detainees who are members of the Islamic State
of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1224)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and
the Attorney General, to designate an existing official within
the Executive Branch as a senior-level coordinator to
coordinate all matters for the United States Government
relating to the long-term disposition of members of the Islamic
State of Syria and Iraq and associated forces.

Report on lessons learned from efforts to liberate Mosul and Raqqah
from control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1225)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on lessons learned from coalition operations
to liberate Mosul, Iraq, and Raqqah, Syria, from control of the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Europe and the Russian Federation

Prohibition on availability of funds relating to sovereignty of the
Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1231)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2020 for the Department of
Defense to be obligated or expended to implement any activity
that recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over
Crimea.

Prohibition on use of funds for withdrawal of Armed Forces from Europe
in the event of United States withdrawal from the North
Atlantic Treaty (sec. 1232)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to be
obligated, expended, or reprogrammed for the withdrawal of the
United States Armed Forces from Europe during the 1-year period
beginning on the date that the President should ever provide
notice of withdrawal of the United States from the North
Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949,
pursuant to Article 13 of the treaty.

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the United
States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1233)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2020 the prohibition established in section
1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328), as most recently amended by the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-232). This section prohibits funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense
from being used for bilateral military-to-military cooperation
between the United States and the Russian Federation without
certain certifications by the Secretary of Defense, made in
coordination with the Secretary of State, or unless certain
waiver conditions are met.

Modification and extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
(sec. 1234)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2022, the authority under section 1250 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), as amended by section 1246 of the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019
(Public Law 115-232), for the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide security
assistance, including defensive lethal assistance, and
intelligence support to military and other security forces of
the Government of Ukraine. The provision would also add coastal
defense cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles to the
categories of appropriate security assistance and intelligence
support. The provision would authorize up to $300.0 million in
fiscal year 2020 to provide security assistance to Ukraine, of
which $100.0 million would be available only for lethal
assistance.
The committee believes that the November 25, 2018, Russian
attack on and seizure of 3 Ukrainian naval vessels and the
capture of 24 Ukrainian sailors in that incident represent a
provocative escalation of Russia's violation of Ukrainian
sovereignty and is in contravention of international law and
numerous Russian commitments. The committee calls on Russia to
immediately release the Ukrainian sailors and vessels it
continues to unjustly detain, end its harassment of Ukrainian
and international shipping transiting the Kerch Strait between
the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and cease its violations of
Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, including
those against Ukrainian territorial waters.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to keep the
congressional defense committees fully informed of the security
situation in the Black Sea, including by promptly informing the
committees regarding further aggressive acts by Russia in the
region. The committee remains concerned about the impact of
this Russian escalation on U.S., North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), and Ukrainian interests in and around the
Black Sea and supports ongoing military and diplomatic steps to
protect those interests. Such steps include the provision of
assistance by the United States and NATO allies, individually
and collectively, to Ukraine to build its capabilities to
defend its territorial waters.

Extension of authority for training for Eastern European national
security forces in the course of multilateral exercises (sec.
1235)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2022, the authority provided in section
1251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), as amended by section 1205 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91), for the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of State, to provide multilateral or regional
training, and pay the incremental expenses of participating in
such training, for countries in Eastern Europe that are
signatories to the Partnership for Peace Framework Documents
but not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) or that became NATO members after January 1, 1999.

Limitation on transfer of F-35 aircraft to the Republic of Turkey (sec.
1236)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for the Department of Defense to be used to: (1)
Transfer, or facilitate the transfer, of F-35 aircraft to the
territory of the Republic of Turkey; (2) Transfer equipment,
intellectual property, or technical data necessary for or
related to any maintenance or support of the F-35 aircraft to
the territory of the Republic of Turkey; or (3) Construct
facilities for, or otherwise associated with, the storage of F-
35 aircraft in the territory of the Republic of Turkey. The
provision would permit the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to waive this limitation
upon a written certification to the congressional defense
committees and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate
and the congressional defense committees and Foreign Affairs
Committee of the House of Representatives that: (1) The
Government of Turkey has not accepted delivery of the S-400 air
and missile defense system from the Russian Federation; and (2)
The Government of Turkey has provided reliable assurances that
it will not accept delivery of the S-400 air and missile
defense system from the Russian Federation in the future.

Modifications of briefing, notification, and reporting requirements
relating to non-compliance by the Russian Federation with its
obligations under the INF Treaty (sec. 1237)

The committee recommends a provision that would terminate a
number of congressional reporting, briefing, and notification
requirements germane to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty if the treaty is no longer in force.
The committee expects that the intelligence community will
continue to track closely and report in intelligence channels
the development and deployment of Russian weapons systems that
were previously prohibited under the treaty.

Extension and modification of security assistance for Baltic nations
for joint program for interoperability and deterrence against
aggression (sec. 1238)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1279D of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) by modifying and extending
the authority of the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of State, to conduct or support a single joint
program of the Baltic nations to improve interoperability and
build their capacity to deter and resist aggression by the
Russian Federation. The provision would modify the authority
by: adding command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment to
defense articles and services eligible for a joint program;
increasing the total amount of assistance that may be provided
under the authority to $125.0 million; requiring that the
amount of assistance provided may not exceed the aggregate
amount contributed to the joint program by the Baltic nations;
and extending the date of termination of the authority to
December 31, 2022.
According to the annual report of the Secretary General of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania each spend at least 2 percent of gross domestic
product on defense, focusing their investments on the
capabilities necessary to deter and resist Russian aggression.
They have also made other important contributions to the
alliance. Each Baltic nation hosts one of NATO's Enhanced
Forward Presence battlegroups, for which they provide critical
host nation support. Moreover, all three countries contribute
troops to the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.
However, despite a demonstrated commitment to defense
investment and burden-sharing in the NATO alliance, Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania have significant unmet defense
requirements that are unlikely to be met solely through their
individual national defense budgets. The committee believes
that joint procurement could enable Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania to strengthen security cooperation, improve key
military capabilities, and realize cost savings through
economies of scale. With support from the United States, such
as assistance provided by the section 1279D authority, as well
as participation by other allies and partners, a joint program
could accelerate the ability of the Baltic nations to address
their unmet defense requirements and bolster deterrence against
Russian aggression.

Report on North Atlantic Treaty Organization Readiness Initiative (sec.
1239)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Readiness Initiative not later than October 1, 2020.

Reports on contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(sec. 1240)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to certain congressional
committees a report containing a summary of the key findings of
the annual report of the Secretary General of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as well as assessments of
various elements of burden-sharing and defense cooperation with
and among NATO allies.

Future years plans for European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 1241)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Commander of
United States European Command (EUCOM), to submit to the
congressional defense committees a future years plan on
activities and resources of the European Deterrence Initiative
(EDI) for fiscal year 2020 and not fewer than the 4 succeeding
fiscal years. The provision would require that the plan
include: a description of the objectives of the EDI, including
a description of the intended force structure and posture of
the assigned and allocated forces within the area of
responsibility of EUCOM for the last fiscal year of the plan
and the manner in which such force structure and posture
support the implementation of the National Defense Strategy; an
assessment of capabilities requirements to achieve the
objectives of the EDI; an assessment of logistics requirements,
including personnel, equipment, supplies, storage, and
maintenance needs, to achieve the objectives of the EDI; an
identification of required infrastructure and military
construction investments to achieve the objectives of the EDI,
including potential infrastructure investments by host nations;
an assessment of security cooperation investments required to
achieve the objectives of the EDI; and a plan to fully resource
United States force posture and capabilities, including a
detailed assessment of the resources necessary to address the
aforementioned requirements with specific cost estimates for
each project in the EDI and a detailed timeline to achieve the
intended force structure and posture for the last fiscal year
of the plan.
The provision would further require that, not later than
the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress
the budget request for the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 2021, the Secretary, in consultation with the Commander of
EUCOM, submit to the congressional defense committees a future
years plan on activities and resources of the EDI for fiscal
year 2021 and not fewer than the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

Modification of reporting requirements relating to the Open Skies
Treaty (sec. 1242)

The committee recommends a provision that would realign an
annual report required by section 1235 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) with
the calendar year planning process of the Open Skies Treaty.
The provision would also reduce the frequency of the submission
of a report required by section 1236 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
from quarterly to annually.

Report on nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and nuclear
modernization of the People's Republic of China (sec. 1243)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of
National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, to submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report describing:
Russia's deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons; Russia's
nuclear weapons in development that would not be covered by the
New START if deployed; Russia's non-deployed strategic weapons;
China's nuclear modernization program; and the implications
thereof on the New START central limits.

Sense of Senate on the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (sec. 1244)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's establishment.

Sense of Senate on United States force posture in Europe and the
Republic of Poland (sec. 1245)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should increase the
persistent presence of United States forces in the Republic of
Poland, including key combat enabler units such as warfighting
headquarters elements, in order to enhance deterrence against
Russian aggression and reduce the risk of executing Department
of Defense contingency plans.

Sense of Senate on United States partnership with the Republic of
Georgia (sec. 1246)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should promote its
enduring strategic partnership with the Republic of Georgia.

Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Indo-Pacific Region

Limitation on use of funds to reduce the total number of members of the
Armed Forces in the territory of the Republic of Korea (sec.
1251)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to
reduce the total number of members of the Armed Forces in the
territory of the Republic of Korea (ROK) below 28,500 until 90
days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense certifies
to the congressional defense committees that: such a reduction
is in the national security interests of the United States and
will not significantly undermine the security of United States
allies in the region; such a reduction is commensurate with a
reduction in the threat posed to the security of the United
States and its allies in the region by the conventional
military forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK); and the Secretary has appropriately consulted with
allies of the United States, including the ROK and Japan,
regarding such a reduction.
The committee recognizes that U.S. military forces deployed
on the Korean Peninsula remain vital to deterring and, if
necessary, defeating aggression by the DPRK, which continues to
threaten the national security interests of the United States
and the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region through
both its conventional forces and weapons of mass destruction.
While the committee supports diplomatic efforts to achieve the
complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the
DPRK, the committee believes that the significant removal of
United States military forces from the Korean Peninsula is non-
negotiable in such efforts.
The committee believes that the U.S.-ROK alliance remains
fundamental to peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region
and to U.S. national security interests. As diplomatic efforts
concerning denuclearization continue, the committee believes
that the United States and the ROK should prioritize preserving
and strengthening the alliance and reject cynical efforts by
other nations to undermine it.
The committee commends the ROK for its significant
``burden-sharing'' contributions. At approximately 2.5 percent
of gross domestic product, ROK defense spending is among the
highest of any U.S. ally. This level of investment is reflected
in the advanced capabilities and high readiness of the ROK
military. Moreover, the ROK has made substantial financial
contributions to strengthening common security, including
through direct cost-sharing and other alliance-related
expenditures, such as the construction of Camp Humphreys for
U.S. forces. Therefore, the committee believes that it is
critical that negotiations concerning a new Special Measures
Agreement between the United States and the ROK covering 2020
and beyond should be conducted in a spirit of common interest
and mutual respect and with due consideration of the ROK's
significant contributions.
The committee also encourages the ROK and Japan to renew
their commitment to bilateral and multilateral security
cooperation, which is beneficial for both nations and the
security of the Indo-Pacific region.

Expansion of Indo-Pacific Maritime Security Initiative (sec. 1252)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1263(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to include as recipient
countries for assistance and training under the Indo-Pacific
Maritime Security Initiative the following: the Federated
States of Micronesia, the Kingdom of Tonga, Papua New Guinea,
the Republic of Fiji, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Republic of Palau, the Republic of Vanuatu, and the Solomon
Islands.
The committee notes the National Defense Strategy's (NDS)
emphasis on strengthening alliances and attracting new
partners. In particular, the NDS calls for expanding Indo-
Pacific alliances and partnerships, including through regional
security cooperation mechanisms, in order to develop a
networked security architecture capable of deterring
aggression, maintaining stability, and ensuring free access to
common domains. The committee also notes the testimony of the
Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, before the committee on
February 12, 2019, concerning the importance of deepening
engagement with countries in Oceania, in which he cited
``opportunities to partner with our strong allies, Australia
and France, and strong friend, New Zealand, to improve
information-sharing and maritime cooperation as the Pacific
Island Countries address the challenges associated with
Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, natural
disasters, narcotics trafficking, and economic coercion from
Beijing.'' To seize these opportunities, in a March 22, 2019,
letter to the congressional defense committees, the Commander
recommended a maritime security program for countries in
Oceania.
The committee recognizes that strengthening alliances and
partnerships in Oceania is critical for supporting the
implementation of the National Defense Strategy in the Indo-
Pacific. The committee believes that the inclusion of the
aforementioned eight countries in Oceania in the Indo-Pacific
Maritime Security Initiative would support this effort.

Modification of annual report on military and security developments
involving the People's Republic of China (sec. 1253)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
paragraph 26 of section 1202(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65; 10
U.S.C. 113 note) by modifying reporting requirements concerning
the relationship between Chinese overseas investment, including
the Belt and Road Initiative and the Digital Silk Road, and
Chinese security and military objectives.

Report on resourcing United States defense requirements for the Indo-
Pacific region (sec. 1254)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Commander, United States Indo-Pacific Command, to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report containing the
independent assessment of the Commander with respect to the
activities and resources required for fiscal years 2022 through
2026 to achieve the following objectives: the implementation of
the National Defense Strategy with respect to the Indo-Pacific
region; the maintenance or restoration of the comparative
military advantage of the United States with respect to the
People's Republic of China; and the reduction of the risk of
executing contingency plans of the Department of Defense. The
report would include a plan to fully resource U.S. force
posture and capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region, including
specific cost estimates for priority investments or projects.
The provision would require, following the submission of the
report, two joint briefings on assessments of the report with a
focus on the feasibility and advisability of the resource plan
provided by the Commander. The first briefing would be provided
by the Secretary of Defense, the Director of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. The second would be provided by the Secretary of the Air
Force, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the
Navy.
The committee believes that effective implementation of the
National Defense Strategy and addressing the challenge of
strategic competition with China require urgent change at
significant scale. However, while the Department of Defense has
made progress toward this goal, the pace and scale of change
have been insufficient. The Department of Defense needs a
unified, comprehensive, and long-term vision of its
requirements in the Indo-Pacific region as well as the
necessary resources and a feasible timeline to achieve them.
The committee is committed to partnering with the Department of
Defense to develop and implement such a vision. To that end,
the required report and the subsequent briefings will inform
the committee's review of the Department of Defense's
development and submission of a fiscal year 2022 budget request
and associated future years defense program with a focus on the
National Defense Strategy and strategic competition with China.

Report on distributed lay-down of United States forces in the Indo-
Pacific region (sec. 1255)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Government of
Japan and other foreign governments as necessary, to conduct a
review of the planned distribution of members of the United
States Armed Forces in the Indo-Pacific region as contemplated
by the United States and Japan in past agreements. The
provision would also establish certain certification,
notification, and reporting requirements related to the results
of the review.
The committee acknowledges the pressing need to reduce the
presence of United States Marine Corps on Okinawa, Japan, and
to accelerate adjustments to United States force posture in the
Indo-Pacific region. The committee believes that it is critical
that the United States pursue these objectives in close
consultation with the Government of Japan.

Sense of Senate on the United States-Japan alliance and defense
cooperation (sec. 1256)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate concerning the United States-Japan alliance
and opportunities for enhancing defense cooperation.

Sense of Senate on enhancement of the United States-Taiwan defense
relationship (sec. 1257)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate concerning the enhancement of the United
States-Taiwan defense relationship. The committee believes that
the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law
96-8) provides a fitting opportunity to evaluate the future of
the United States-Taiwan defense relationship, particularly
given the Department of Defense's focus on implementation of
the National Defense Strategy and on strategic competition with
China.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, not later than December 31, 2019, to brief
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in person and provide: an assessment of the
role of relations with Taiwan in implementation of the National
Defense Strategy; a description of Department of Defense
policies related to defense cooperation, military exchanges,
combined defense planning, and combined exercises and training
with Taiwan; a description of how other executive branch
policies related to relations with Taiwan affect the Department
of Defense; and the objectives of the Department of Defense
concerning the United States-Taiwan defense relationship.

Sense of Senate on United States-India defense relationship (sec. 1258)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should strengthen
and enhance its major defense partnership with India and work
toward mutual security objectives.

Sense of Senate on security commitments to the Governments of Japan and
the Republic of Korea and trilateral cooperation among the
United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (sec. 1259)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate with respect to security commitments to the
Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea and trilateral
cooperation between the United States, Japan, and the Republic
of Korea.

Sense of Senate on enhanced cooperation with Pacific Island countries
to establish open-source intelligence fusion centers in the
Indo-Pacific region (sec. 1260)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that U.S. Indo-Pacific Command should
pursue the establishment of one or more open-source
intelligence fusion centers in the Indo-Pacific region to
enhance cooperation with Pacific Island countries.

Sense of Senate on enhancing defense and security cooperation with the
Republic of Singapore (sec. 1261)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that robust defense and security
cooperation between the United States and the Republic of
Singapore is crucial to promoting peace and stability in the
Indo-Pacific region.

Subtitle F--Reports

Report on cost imposition strategy (sec. 1271)

The committee recommends a provision that would require,
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional
defense committees a report describing the cost imposition
strategies of the Department of Defense with respect to the
People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

Subtitle G--Others Matters

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
5 years the authority established in section 1244 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84), as most recently amended by section 1280 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).

Modifications of authorities relating to acquisition and cross-
servicing agreements (sec. 1282)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 2342 of title 10, United States Code to improve
management, transparency, and oversight of Department of
Defense acquisition and cross-servicing agreements.

Modification of authority for United States-Israel anti-tunnel
cooperation activities (sec. 1283)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) to modify the authority
for United States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation activities.
The provision would remove countering unmanned aerial systems
from the section 1279 authority. Elsewhere in this Act, the
committee recommends a provision that would establish a
separate authority for United States-Israel cooperation
regarding countering unmanned aerial systems. The provision
would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to use amounts
available under the section 1279 authority, which are in excess
of the amount contributed by the Government of Israel, for
costs associated with unique national requirements identified
by the United States with respect to anti-tunnel capabilities.

United States-Israel cooperation to counter unmanned aerial systems
(sec. 1284)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out joint research,
development, test, and evaluation to establish capabilities for
countering unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) that threaten the
United States or Israel.
The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) included a provision that
modified the authority for United States-Israel anti-tunneling
cooperation activities, provided by section 1279 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), to include C-UAS activities. Elsewhere in this
Act, the committee recommends a provision that would strike
that modification. This provision would establish a separate
authority to conduct joint C-UAS efforts with Israel to ensure
dedicated support for both anti-tunneling and C-UAS cooperation
as well as to ensure proper oversight and transparency of C-UAS
cooperation through reporting and certification requirements.

Modification of initiative to support protection of national security
academic researchers from undue influence and other security
threats (sec. 1285)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1286 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) to
require the Secretary of Defense to develop a list of academic
institutions of the People's Republic of China and the Russian
Federation that are: (1) Associated with a defense program of
the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation,
including any university heavily engaged in military research;
(2) Are known to recruit individuals for the purpose of
advancing the talent and capabilities of such a defense program
or to provide misleading transcripts or otherwise attempt to
conceal the connections of an individual or institution to such
a defense program; or (3) Pose a serious risk of intangible
transfers of defense or engineering technology and research.
The provision would require that the list be developed in
consultation with the Bureau of Industry and Security of the
Department of Commerce, the Director of National Intelligence,
and United States academic institutions that conduct
significant Department of Defense research or engineering
activities.

Independent assessment of human rights situation in Honduras (sec.
1286)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with an
independent think tank or a federally funded research and
development center to conduct an analysis and assessment of the
compliance of the military and security forces of Honduras with
international human rights laws and standards.

United States Central Command posture review (sec. 1287)

The committee recommends a provision that would mandate a
comprehensive United States Central Command posture review,
which would assess the extent to which the United States
possesses the force posture and capabilities for countering
threats emanating from and affecting the United States Central
Command's area of responsibility. While the committee views a
continuous force presence in U.S. Central Command's area of
responsibility as necessary for countering a wide range of
threats, the committee supports the National Defense Strategy's
(NDS) emphasis on the importance of alliances and partnerships.
As stated in the NDS, ``By working together with allies and
partners we amass the greatest possible strength for the long-
term advancement of our interests, maintaining favorable
balances of power that deter aggression and support the
stability that generates economic growth. When we pool
resources and share responsibility for our common defense, our
security burden becomes lighter.'' The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to work toward increased burden-sharing
with our regional and European partners in countering threats
emanating from and affecting U.S. Central Command's area of
responsibility and in pursuing shared security objectives.

Reports on expenses incurred for in-flight refueling of Saudi coalition
aircraft conducting missions relating to civil war in Yemen
(sec. 1288)

The committee recommends a provision that would mandate a
report detailing the expenses incurred by the United States in
providing in-flight refueling services for Saudi or Saudi-led
coalition non-United States aircraft conducting missions as
part of the civil war in Yemen from March 1, 2015, to November
11, 2018, and the extent to which such expenses have been
reimbursed by members of the Saudi-led coalition.

Sense of Senate on security concerns with respect to leasing
arrangements for the Port of Haifa in Israel (sec. 1289)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States has an interest in
the future forward presence of United States naval vessels at
the Port of Haifa in Israel but has serious security concerns
with respect to current the leasing arrangements of the Port of
Haifa. Therefore, the provision would express the view that the
United States should urge the Government of Israel to consider
the security implications of foreign investment in Israel.

Items of Special Interest

Contributions of allies and partners to costs of U.S. forces stationed
overseas

The committee recognizes that a credible forward force
posture and assured access to critical military locations
around the world are necessary elements of any effective
strategy for defending the security and interests of the United
States. Moreover, neither are possible without the willingness
of allies and partners to host U.S. forces. Indeed, the
National Defense Strategy underscores that allies and partners
``provide access to critical regions, supporting a widespread
basing and logistics system that underpins the [Department of
Defense's] global reach.'' Posture and access are central
issues of U.S. defense policy, essential for meaningful power
projection, and serve as important reminders that the value of
U.S. alliances and partnerships cannot be measured in dollars
and cents alone.
The committee remains concerned about media reports and
other statements regarding consideration of maximalist
approaches to cost-sharing and host-nation support. While the
committee believes that allies and partners should contribute
an equitable share to mutually beneficial collective security,
such approaches are likely to result in significant long-term
damage to U.S. force posture, power projection capabilities,
alliances and partnerships, and national security.
The committee notes the testimony of the Acting Secretary
of Defense to the committee on March 14, 2019: ``We won't do
cost-plus-50 percent. . . . We're not going to run a business,
and we're not going to run a charity.'' While the Acting
Secretary told the committee that allies need to ``pay their
fair share,'' he emphasized that ``it is not about cost-plus-50
percent.''
Not later than October 1, 2019, the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall provide to
the congressional defense committees a briefing on allied and
partner contributions toward the cost of stationing U.S. forces
overseas, including the U.S. approach to upcoming cost-sharing
negotiations through the end of fiscal year 2020.

Cooperative research and development efforts of the United States and
Israel

The committee recognizes the important contributions of
cooperative research and development efforts to the national
security of the United States and Israel, most notably with
respect to missile defense and anti-tunneling capabilities.
Given the National Defense Strategy's emphasis on working
together with allies and partners and on accelerating
modernization to maintain or restore the competitive military
advantage of the United States, the committee seeks to better
understand the Department of Defense's approach to future
cooperative research and development efforts with Israel,
including in emerging or advanced technology areas such as
directed energy, hypersonic weapons, and space systems.
The committee directs the Department to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees not later than March 1,
2020, on the feasibility and desirability of enhanced
cooperative research and development efforts with Israel. The
analysis should include but not necessarily be limited to the
following: (1) An identification of shared capability gaps of
the United States and Israel; (2) An assessment of the relative
priority assigned to addressing such capability gaps by the
United States and Israel; (3) An assessment of the extent to
which cooperative projects would address such capability gaps
in a timely and efficient manner, including in comparison with
unilateral efforts; and (4) An identification of new
authorities, regulatory or policy changes, or additional
resources that would be required to undertake cooperative
projects deemed to be feasible and desirable.

Forward-deployed naval forces in Europe

The committee supports the continued forward-basing of four
United States Navy destroyers in Rota, Spain. These ships are
among the most dynamically-employed naval forces-performing
ballistic missile defense missions, carrying out strikes in
Syria, boosting U.S. presence across the European theater in
support of allies and partners, and monitoring increasing
Russian naval activities. At the same time, these ships have
maintained high readiness, in part due to rigorous maintenance
practices.
In a January 14, 2019, interview, the Commander, U.S. Sixth
Fleet, stated that the forward presence provided by the four
destroyers at Rota ``is the bedrock of our ability to reassure
allies and respond to any threats that come up.'' She added,
``There is no substitute for having that kind of forward
presence in Europe.'' The Commander also observed that the
``solid'' operational model for these ships has enabled them to
maintain ``exceptional'' readiness as well as their training
and certifications. Furthermore, the four ships have been able
to ``conduct all the intermediate maintenance and the extended
maintenance availabilities [needed] to stay ready and stay
focused while on patrol.''
The committee is concerned about increasing Russian naval
activity in the European theater, which is now at its highest
level since the Cold War. The committee is also aware of the
significant advances in Russian naval capability, especially as
it relates to its attack submarines.
Due in part to these developments, the Commander, U.S.
European Command, testified to the committee on March 5, 2019,
that he has recommended adding two destroyers at Rota, Spain.
The Commander stated that, in order ``to remain dominant in the
maritime domain and particularly under sea,'' the United States
``need[s] greater capability, particularly given the
modernization and the growth of the Russian fleets in Europe.''
Furthermore, the President's nominee to be the next commander
of U.S. European Command testified to the committee on April 2,
2019, that he agreed with the current commander's
recommendation.
Therefore, not later than October 1, 2019, the committee
directs the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commander, U.S.
European Command, to provide a joint briefing to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House on the merit and
feasibility of basing two additional destroyers at Rota, Spain,
including an assessment of whether such an enhancement to U.S.
force posture in Europe would enhance the ability of the United
States to deter aggression, flexibly and proactively shape the
strategic environment, improve readiness to respond to
contingencies, and ensure long-term warfighting readiness.

Matters related to Bosnia and Herzegovina

The committee shares the longstanding commitment of the
United States to Bosnia and Herzegovina's sovereignty,
territorial integrity, stability, and prosperity. The committee
continues to support Bosnia and Herzegovina's aspirations to
join the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) as well as efforts to achieve reforms
necessary to realize those goals, including strengthening the
rule of law, safeguarding an independent judiciary, tackling
corruption, and improving financial accountability and
transparency. Moreover, the committee welcomes the decision by
NATO allies to accept the submission of Bosnia and
Herzegovina's first annual national program as part of the
Membership Action Plan process. However, the committee remains
concerned about the potential for renewed violent conflict,
especially in light of Russia's destabilizing activities in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as those of nationalist forces.
Therefore, not later than December 31, 2019, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House a briefing on the
contingency plans and readiness of U.S. and NATO forces to
support and supplement EUFOR in the event of a violent
conflict.

Matters related to Kosovo

The committee fully supports efforts to normalize relations
between Kosovo and Serbia through the European Union-led, U.S.-
supported dialogue process. Normalization of relations between
Kosovo and Serbia is in the interest of Kosovars and Serbs
alike. Furthermore, it is vital to Kosovo's and Serbia's shared
European future and the stability of the Western Balkans.
Therefore, the committee urges both Kosovo and Serbia to
embrace the historic opportunity for an enduring peace and
reconciliation and refrain from any actions that would make a
comprehensive normalization agreement more difficult to
achieve.
The committee continues to support U.S. assistance to the
Kosovo Security Force as the latter makes the gradual
transition to a transparent and multi-ethnic army for the
Republic of Kosovo that is interoperable with North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) members. The committee believes that
it is critical that this transformation take place in close
coordination with NATO allies and partners through an inclusive
and transparent process, which respects the rights and concerns
of all of Kosovo's citizens, promotes regional security and
stability, and supports Kosovo's aspirations for eventual full
membership in NATO.
The committee also fully supports the continued mission of
NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR), which plays an indispensable role
in maintaining security and stability in Southeastern Europe.
Together with our allies and partners, the United States should
maintain its commitment to KFOR and take all appropriate steps
to ensure that it has the necessary personnel, capabilities,
and resources to perform its critical mission.

Protect Interests of Syrian Democratic Forces During U.S. Withdrawal

The committee believes that the security and stability of
eastern Syria and continued engagement with the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) is in the national security interest of
the United States and important to regional stability. The
committee notes that the SDF, including both Kurdish and Arab
components, have made significant sacrifices and contributions
to the liberation of areas controlled by ISIS and the defeat of
the so-called physical caliphate. The committee also notes that
ISIS remains a considerable security threat and that continued
counterterrorism operations in partnership with the SDF will be
necessary to ensure the enduring defeat of the group.
The committee is concerned that a premature withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Syria could negatively impact the security and
stability of eastern Syria and put at risk the gains achieved
by the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Additionally, such a
withdrawal would cede critical competitive geopolitical space
to Russia and Iran that could significantly alter the regional
balance of power in ways contrary to U.S. national security
interests. Therefore, the committee urges the President to
consider fully the direct and indirect effects of any decision
related to a reduction of U.S. forces in Syria on security and
stability in eastern Syria, including but not limited to:
(1) The safety of Kurdish and Arab elements of the
SDF and civilians in areas under their control;
(2) Local governance efforts;
(3) Protection of internally displaced people and
other vulnerable populations;
(4) Facilitation of international stabilization and
reconstruction activities; and
(5) Detention and repatriation of ISIS foreign
terrorist fighters.

Support to the Kurdish Peshmerga

The committee notes that the United States-led coalition
known as the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent
Resolve (CJTF-OIR) in partnership with the Iraqi Security
Forces (ISF), including the Kurdish Peshmerga, successfully
liberated significant Iraqi territory from the control of the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). While the committee
applauds this significant achievement, it also expresses
concern that ISIS continues to pose a significant threat to
Iraq, the region, and potentially the U.S. homeland.
According to the most recent Lead Inspector General report
for OIR, CJTF-OIR has expressed concern that ISIS has
transitioned to ``operating as an insurgent organization,''
including ``operating primarily in rural parts of northern and
western Iraq where security forces have little reach.'' In its
report, the Lead Inspector General also highlighted concerns
that ``ISIS has been able to exploit the physical security gaps
between the ISF and the Peshmerga, and increased coordination
between the two sides is necessary to counter-ISIS
activities.''
The committee believes a lasting defeat of ISIS is critical
to maintaining a stable and tolerant Iraq in which all faiths,
sects, and ethnicities are afforded equal protection and full
integration into the Government and society of Iraq and
supports the provision of U.S. security and other assistance
for such purposes. As part of those efforts, the committee
supports continued assistance to Kurdish Peshmerga forces with
the objective of enabling them to more effectively partner with
the ISF, the United States, and other international partners.
The committee strongly supports continuation of the partnership
between the U.S. military and the Kurdish Peshmerga in
furtherance of our shared interests, including through the
signing of a new memorandum of understanding between the
Department of Defense and the Ministry of Peshmerga. The
committee also strongly supports actions by the Government of
Iraq to assume responsibility for paying for the salaries and
sustainment of Peshmerga forces. In the coming years, the
committee encourages the Department to normalize its support to
the Peshmerga by focusing assistance on reform and
professionalization at the ministerial and unit level.

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

Funding allocations for Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program (sec. 1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$338.7 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program, define the funds as authorized to be appropriated in
section 301 of this Act, and authorize CTR funds to be
available for obligation for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Items of Special Interest

10-year risk planning for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than
April 30, 2021, on the risks and vulnerabilities over the next
10 years associated with containing the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and associated technologies to
guide future programmatic efforts of the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program. The report shall be unclassified with a
classified annex, if required.

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Military Programs

Working capital funds (sec. 1401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the defense working capital funds at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction, Defense, at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug
Activities, Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1405)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

Subtitle B--National Defense Stockpile

Modification of prohibition on acquisition of sensitive materials from
non-allied foreign nations (sec. 1411)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2533c of title 10, United States Code, to include
tantalum in the definition of covered materials.

Subtitle C--Armed Forces Retirement Home

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an appropriation of $64.3 million from the Armed Forces
Retirement Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2020 for the
operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Expansion of eligibility for residence at the Armed Forces Retirement
Home (sec. 1422)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1512(a) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(24 U.S.C. 412(a)) to: (1) Expand eligibility to retired
veterans under age 60 and retired members of the National Guard
and Reserves (NGR); and (2) Provide parity of fees for veterans
eligible for active military service and those newly eligible
through NGR service by requiring the income used for fee
determination for an NGR-eligible resident to be not less than
an Active-Duty resident's military retirement pay at the same
grade and length of service. The provision would also amend
section 1514(c) of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(24 U.S.C. 414(c)) to provide parity for monthly withholding
from pay of NGR members and Active-Duty members by applying the
withholding across the total force, as well as requiring newly
eligible NGR residents to pay a fee upon admission for years
prior to the date of the enactment of this Act when the
withholding was not taken from pay.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
(sec. 1431)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $127.0 million from the
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund, established by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), for
the operation of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center.

Budget Items

Air Force cash corpus for energy optimization
The budget request included $92.4 million in Working
Capital Fund, Air Force.
The committee continues to recognize the urgent requirement
to constantly innovate and improve combat capability and
operational effectiveness for the warfighter via targeted and
competitive operational energy science and technology
investments.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in Air Force Working Capital Fund 493003F to create a
cash corpus for the purposes of energy optimization
initiatives.
Contraceptive coverage parity under the TRICARE program
The budget request included $31.8 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance account for the Defense Health Program (DHP).
The amount authorized to be appropriated for the DHP includes
the following change from the budget request. The provision
underlying this change in funding level is discussed in greater
detail in title VII of this committee report.

[Change in millions of dollars]

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE +11.0
Program..............................................
Total............................................. +11.0

Items of Special Interest

Armed Forces Retirement Home

The committee recognizes the critical role of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) in providing residences and
related services for certain retired and former members of the
Armed Forces. The committee notes that the AFRH plans to lease
80 acres of underutilized land for development on its
Washington, D.C., campus.
As the AFRH's management, the General Services
Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
review development proposals, the committee encourages them to:
(1) Conduct the review and selection process in a fair and open
manner; (2) Give preference to shovel-ready proposals that
conform to the ``AFRH-W Master Plan''; (3) Give preference to
proposals that include innovative measures that would enhance
services for AFRH residents; (4) Give preference to proposals
that maximize value to the AFRH through balancing financial
priorities such as near-term cash flow and long-term
appreciated value; and (5) Give preference to proposals that
include certified audits of revenues and expenses by the
developers.

TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
this title and make available authorized appropriations upon
enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
authorization of appropriations in this title as overseas
contingency operations.
Procurement (sec. 1503)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for procurement activities at the
levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for research, development, test,
and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section
4202 of division D of this Act.
Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for operation and maintenance
activities at the levels identified in section 4302 of division
D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1506)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for military personnel activities
at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this
Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for the Defense Working Capital
Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of
this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1508)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for the Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-wide at the levels identified
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense identified in section 4502
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for the Defense Health Program
activities identified in section 4502 of division D of this
Act.

Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
The committee recommends a provision that would state that
the amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $2.5 billion of overseas
contingency operations funding authorized for fiscal year 2020
in this title to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance
with normal reprogramming procedures. This transfer authority
would be in addition to the authority provided to the Secretary
elsewhere in this Act.

Budget Items

Transfer from OCO to Base Procurement
The budget request included $23.1 billion for Procurement
in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The committee
notes that the President's budget request included $97.9
billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account
for activities that are traditionally funded out of base
accounts. The committee believes that OCO for Base funding
should be transferred into the base accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $13.5
billion to Procurement OCO.
Transfer OCO to Base RDT&E
The budget request included $1.6 billion for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) in Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. The committee notes that
the President's budget request included $97.9 billion in the
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for activities
that are traditionally funded out of base accounts. The
committee believes that OCO for Base funding should be
transferred into the base accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $748.0
million to RDT&E OCO.
Marine Corps facility sustainment increase for disaster recovery
The budget request included $5.1 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps Overseas Contingency Operations
(OMMCOCO), of which $443.3 million was requested for SAG BSM1
Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization.
The committee notes the ongoing recovery efforts in the
mid-Atlantic region at installations such as Camp Lejeune,
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, and Marine Corps
Logistics Base Albany. The committee believes that additional
funds are needed to assist in those efforts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in
OMMCOCO of $340.0 million for SAG BSM1 to specifically augment
disaster recovery.
Air Force facility sustainment disaster recovery increase
The budget request included $33.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force Overseas Contingency Operations
(OMAFOCO), of which $4.3 billion was requested for SAG 011R
Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, & Modernization.
The committee notes the ongoing recovery efforts at Tyndall
Air Force Base, Eglin Air Force Base, Warner Robins Air
Logistics Center, and Offutt Air Force Base due to recent
hurricanes and flooding. The committee believes that additional
funds are needed to assist in those efforts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in
OMAFOCO of $340.0 million for SAG 011R to specifically augment
disaster recovery.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
The budget request included $1.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), for SAG 4GTD, the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, of which $812.0 million is for the security
cooperation account.
The committee notes that the reforms to the Department of
Defense's (DOD) security cooperation enterprise required by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) sought to rationalize and streamline the
authorities and associated funding available for security
cooperation and enhance the effectiveness of DOD planning,
execution, and oversight. Additionally, that law emphasized the
critical importance of non-materiel solutions to the
effectiveness of DOD security cooperation efforts, namely
through an increased emphasis on building the institutional
capacity of foreign partners to more competently manage and
sustain their own forces and the equipment and related
assistance provided by the United States. The reforms also
highlighted the need to mature the DOD security cooperation
workforce and the development and implementation of a rigorous
assessment, monitoring, and evaluation (AM&E) program to ensure
that DOD programs are appropriately scoped and meeting clearly
defined objectives.
However, while funding for DSCA's security cooperation
account--which is primarily used to provide equipment and
training to foreign partners to build capacity at the tactical
and operational levels--has grown from approximately $895
million in fiscal year 2018 for base and OCO to the $1.2
billion requested for fiscal year 2020 for base and OCO, the
DOD continues to insufficiently prioritize and resource
congressionally-mandated efforts relating to DOD security
cooperation workforce development, AM&E, and institutional
capacity building. The committee believes that this imbalance
inhibits appropriate security cooperation program design,
execution, and oversight, which could lead to suboptimal
outcomes and wasted taxpayer dollars.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
million in OMDW, OCO, for SAG 4GTD, the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, for the security cooperation account, for a
total of $712.0 million.
Iraq Security Cooperation
The budget request included $1.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), for SAG 4GTD Defense Security Cooperation
Agency.
The committee understands that a substantial portion of the
funds requested for Iraq Train and Equip Requirements is for
capacity building of the Iraqi Security Forces as opposed to
operational support and immediate reconstitution of units
degraded in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria. The committee believes that, as the United States seeks
to normalize its security assistance relationship with the
Government of Iraq, traditional capacity building activities
should be funded via standing authorities for such purposes,
such as section 333 of title 10, United States Code.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million in OMDW, OCO, for SAG 4GTD for capacity building of the
Iraqi Security Forces. The committee notes that, elsewhere in
this Act, there is a commensurate decrease in the Counter-ISIS
Train and Equip Fund.
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
The budget request included $1.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency
Operations, for SAG 4GTD, the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, of which $250.0 million was for the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative.
The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to
SAG4GTD Defense Security Cooperation Agency for the Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative.
Transfer OCO to Base O&M
The budget request included $133.1 billion for Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding. The committee notes that the President's budget
request included $97.9 billion in the OCO account for
activities that are traditionally funded out of base accounts.
The committee believes that OCO for Base funding should be
transferred into the base accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $81.3
billion to O&M OCO.
Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund
The budget request included $1.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO), for the Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria Train and Equip Fund, of which $745.0 million is for SAG
110 Iraq Train and Equip Requirements.
The committee understands that a substantial portion of the
funds requested for Iraq Train and Equip Requirements is for
capacity building of the Iraqi Security Forces as opposed to
operational support and immediate reconstitution of units
degraded in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria. The committee believes that, as the United States seeks
to normalize its security assistance relationship with the
Government of Iraq, traditional capacity building activities
should be funded via standing authorities for such purposes,
such as section 333 of title 10, United States Code.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $100.0
million in OMDW, OCO, for SAG 110 Iraq Train and Equip
Requirements. The committee notes that, elsewhere in this Act,
there is a commensurate increase for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency for Iraq Train and Equip Requirements.

TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

Subtitle A--Space Activities

Part I--United States Space Force

United States Space Force (secs. 1601-1608)
The committee recommends a series of provisions (sec. 1601-
1608) that would establish the U.S. Space Force (USSF) and make
changes to the organization of, authorities of, and acquisition
associated with space forces assigned to the Department of
Defense (DOD). The committee is concerned that the United
States' assets and interests in space are increasingly at risk
and that space has become a contested domain. In an era of
great power competition, the DOD must appropriately organize
itself to maintain, grow, and optimize U.S. competitive
advantage in the space warfighting domain. The committee
believes that these provisions would organize the Department to
maximize warfighting capacity while minimizing the bureaucratic
and taxpayer burden of an initial reorganization and providing
a structured framework and roadmap to develop the USSF over the
long-term.
The committee intends for these provisions to: (1) Retain
space capabilities and efficiencies developed by current
organizational constructs; (2) Consolidate and integrate space
acquisition resources and intellectual capital to realize
economies of scale, streamline procurement timelines, and
accelerate the deployment of U.S. capabilities in the space
warfighting domain; (3) Transition DOD space warfighting assets
from a strictly supporting role to an active warfighting
capability and develop unity of command in the space domain;
and (4) Foster and further develop space warfighting culture.
These provisions would expand and change the role of the
Principal Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force for Space
by renaming it the Principal Assistant to the Secretary of the
Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration (SAF/SP) and
establishing the position as the senior space acquisition
executive (SSAE) for all space acquisition across the Air
Force, separate from the existing Air Force senior acquisition
executive. The SAF/SP, as the SSAE, would report to the
Secretary of the Air Force for all Air Force space acquisition
programs and would have oversight and control over all Air
Force space acquisition activities, including all major defense
acquisition programs relating to warfighting in space. All
space acquisition projects currently managed by the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition would be
transitioned to the SAF/SP. These provisions would also elevate
the SAF/SP to a civilian 4-star equivalent position. The
committee believes that the expansion of the responsibilities
and elevation of the position of the SAF/SP would help to
minimize the statutory and bureaucratic seams that exist
between space acquisition authorities and officials spread
across the DOD.
These provisions would transition control of the manpower,
agencies, and budgets within the Space and Missile Systems
Center, the Space Rapid Capabilities Office, and the Space
Development Agency to the SAF/SP, as the SSAE, upon the
enactment of this Act. The committee believes that assigning to
the SAF/SP this acquisition authority and organizational
responsibility would reduce bureaucracy, improve oversight, and
minimize interagency gaps. These provisions would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide quarterly briefings to
the congressional defense committees on this transition's
progress and the need, if any, for further congressional
action. The first briefing would be provided not later than
March 31, 2020, and this requirement would expire on March 31,
2022.
These provisions would also establish a Space Force
Acquisition Council (SAC) within the Department of the Air
Force, which would oversee, direct, and manage Air Force
acquisitions for space in order to ensure integration across
the national security space enterprise. These provisions would
establish the SAF/SP as the chair of Council, which would act
as an approval and clearinghouse authority to move space
operations projects to orbit faster and provide warfighter
access and operational utility. The Under Secretary of the Air
Force, the Commander, U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM), the
Commander, United States Space Force (USSF), the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, and the Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) would also be members of
the Council. The committee believes that the inclusion of the
Director of the NRO on the SAC would help to minimize the space
acquisition seam that exists between the NRO and the Air Force.
The SAC would meet not less frequently than monthly. These
provisions would require the SAC to submit to the congressional
defense committees, not later than 30 days after the end of
each calendar year quarter through the first calendar year
quarter of 2025, a report on the activities of the Council
during the previous calendar year quarter.
As the Air Force implements these changes, the committee
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to examine and
consider the model that the NRO uses for acquisition. The
committee acknowledges that, by utilizing its small-sized staff
and a streamlined acquisition process, the NRO is able to move
with agility and acquire assets rapidly. The committee intends
for these provisions to better position the Air Force to gain
the same efficiencies in space acquisition as the NRO.
These provisions would also redesignate the Commander, Air
Force Space Command, as the Commander, USSF. This 4-star
commander would have a 4-year term of command and
responsibility to organize, train, and equip space forces,
serving as the primary force provider for SPACECOM. The
Commander, USSF, would exercise authority for doctrine,
organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,
personnel, facilities, and policy responsibilities, utilizing
the existing structure of the Air Force for administrative
support as the new USSF structure is established and further
defined. The Commander, USSF, would report through the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force to the Secretary of the Air Force during
the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act. After 1 year, the Commander, USSF, would report
directly to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Commander,
USSF, would participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the
discretion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as
topics dictate and issues require, for the 1-year period
beginning on the data of enactment of this Act. After 1 year,
the Commander, USSF, would be a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. These provisions would also designate the Vice
Commander, Air Force Space Command, as the Vice Commander,
USSF. The Vice Commander would be elevated to a Senate-
confirmed 4-star position and would support the Joint Chiefs of
Staff at the request of the Commander, USSF. Finally, these
provisions would require that, as the Secretary of the Air
Force establishes the USSF, the Secretary use existing military
and civilian personnel within the Air Force; these provisions
do not authorize additional military billets or additional
employment of civilian personnel.
These provisions would provide the Secretary of Defense
with the authority to establish a dual-hatted arrangement
wherein the Commander, USSF, would also serve as the Commander,
SPACECOM, during the 1-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act, an authority that the committee expects
the Secretary to utilize. Should the Secretary elect to
establish this dual-hat arrangement, the committee recommends
that, after this 1-year authority expires, the Secretary
appoint a new individual to serve as Commander, SPACECOM, and
the previously dual-hatted Commander retain his position as
Commander, USSF. These provisions would require the Secretary
to evaluate not later than 1 year after the enactment of this
Act, as both the USSF and SPACECOM mature, the advisability of
permitting the Commander, USSF, to serve concurrently as the
Commander, SPACECOM, and to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the evaluation results.
These provisions would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Secretary of Defense's reports
and to provide briefings to the congressional defense
committees on those reviews not later than 30 days after the
Secretary submits such report.
These provisions would require the Secretary of the Air
Force to move existing space professionals within the Air Force
to the USSF, thereby provisioning to the Commander, USSF, a
space cadre in order to organize current Air Force space
personnel under the entity responsible for their manning,
training, and equipping and to further develop a service-like
space warfighting ethos and culture. While this would include
Air Force servicemembers on assignment in other components of
the Department and the intelligence community, Space Force
members would continue to rotate through assignment to the NRO.
These provisions would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to provide quarterly briefings to the congressional defense
committees on this transition's progress and the need, if any,
for further congressional action. The first briefing would be
provided not later than March 31, 2020, and this requirement
would expire on March 31, 2022.
Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force and the Commander, USSF, to review the role of the
reserve components within the USSF, consulting with the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, on matters pertaining to the National
Guard and the States, to ensure that reserve component
personnel currently assigned to perform space duties continue
to perform those duties in the USSF. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to report the results of this review
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives no later than March 1, 2020, including the
employment of reserve component personnel performing space
duties before and after the creation of the USSF.
These provisions would also require the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Director of National
Intelligence, to review and establish processes to provide more
effective integration of capabilities across the National
Security Agency (NSA), National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
(NGA), and SPACECOM in support of joint operations without
impairing the authorities or responsibilities of the Director
of National Intelligence. The Secretary would submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the findings of
such review not later than 180 days after the enactment of this
Act. The committee is sensitive to concerns that these
provisions' reforms may disrupt command and control of both DOD
and NRO space assets but notes that the tasking of NRO overhead
assets today is not under the control of the Director of the
NRO; instead, it is in the purview of tasking organizations
subordinate to the Directors of the NSA and the NGA. Both of
these agencies are already designated as combat support
agencies under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act (Public Law 99-433).
The committee is also concerned with the lack of unity in
space command and control operations. Currently, the Director
of the NRO operates the NRO's assets and capabilities involved
in space intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
activities independently of the Commander, SPACECOM. This is a
unity of command seam that must be addressed in the space
warfighting domain. The committee notes that this issue is
vital for the warfighter and therefore urges the Secretary of
Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the
Secretary of the Air Force to consider potential solutions,
including the designation of the NRO as a combat support agency
for space ISR command and control operations. Additionally, the
committee expects the Commander, SPACECOM, to continue to
maintain open lines of communication with the intelligence
community.
These provisions would also establish the position of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense. The Assistant Secretary
would be responsible for managing, implementing, and advising
the Secretary of Defense on all policy decisions germane to the
space domain. The committee believes that establishing a
civilian in the Office of the Secretary of Defense with the
primary responsibility for the oversight of space policy would
help to better integrate and synchronize space warfighting
doctrine and policy within the Department.
The committee is aware that the DOD originally proposed
establishment and appointment of the Under Secretary of the Air
Force for Space. To reduce bureaucracy and increase
efficiencies as the U.S. Space Force is established, these
provisions would instead require the Secretary of the Air Force
to evaluate the tasks and operations of the staff in support of
the space warfighting mission. These provisions would require
the Secretary to provide an assessment to the congressional
defense committees as to whether the establishment of the Under
Secretary of the Air Force for Space is required, due not later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.
The committee believes that these provisions embody the
core intent of the Department of Defense's proposed
reorganization of space forces while excluding additive
bureaucracy and minimizing organizational seams. The committee
acknowledges that this reorganization is a phased approach that
emphasizes continued coordination with the Department by
requiring the Department to provide assessments to the
committee on future needs or changes required to ensure that
this reorganization incorporates all assets necessary to
conduct operations in the space warfighting domain. The
committee notes that space dominance is undeniably a vital
national interest and that space has become a contested domain.
The committee believes that these provisions support the
National Defense Strategy's priority of addressing the threats
in the space domain posed by our great power competitors by
quickly streamlining and minimizing gaps in the space
enterprise.

Part II--Other Space Matters

Repeal of requirement to establish Space Command as a subordinate
unified command of the United States Strategic Command (sec.
1611)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 169 of title 10, United States Code, which established
U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM) as a subordinate unified command
of U.S. Strategic Command. The committee believes that the
Commander of SPACECOM will be better able to integrate space
operations with terrestrial operations of geographic combatant
commands, improve the combatant command lexicon's incorporation
of the space domain, and advance the goal of security
cooperation in space.
Program to enhance and improve launch support and infrastructure (sec.
1612)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to enhance
infrastructure and improve support activities for the
processing and launch of Department of Defense (DOD) small-
class and medium-class payloads. The program would be used to:
(1) Make investments in infrastructure to improve
operations at ranges and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)-licensed spaceports consistent
with usage by the DOD;
(2) Take measures to normalize processes, systems,
and products across ranges and spaceports to minimize
burden on launch providers; and
(3) Improve transparency, flexibility, and
responsiveness for launch scheduling, factoring in
proximity to and quantity of existing commercial
airline flight patterns.
The provision would require the Secretary to submit to the
congressional defense committees, not later than 270 days after
the enactment of this Act, a report on the plan for such
program. The report would include:
(1) A description of plans and the resources needed
to improve launch support infrastructure, utilities,
support equipment, and range operations;
(2) A description of plans to streamline and
normalize processes, systems, and products at ranges
and FAA-licensed spaceports to ensure consistency for
range users; and
(3) Recommendations for improving transparency,
flexibility, and responsiveness.
The committee continues to recognize the unique importance
of FAA-licensed spaceports and encourages the use of such
spaceports and launch and range complexes, when appropriate,
for mid-to-low inclination orbits or polar high-inclination
orbits in support of national security space priorities. The
committee recognizes that DOD and future national security
space missions are focused on using smaller, less expensive
satellites and launch vehicles for rapid reconstitution and
resilience. Spaceports have proven small launch capability and
offer the DOD less costly launch sites and services for these
missions, an alternative to Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB),
and the use of commercial business practices to expedite DOD
test and development programs across a variety of mission sets
and a variety of launch and landing methods.
The committee believes that these federally-licensed, non-
federally owned launch facilities, including the Spaceport
America in New Mexico, Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA),
the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), Spaceport Camden in
Georgia, and Oklahoma Air & Space Port, are available to help
meet the requirements for the national security space program
for Air Force Space Command, the Space Rapid Capabilities
Office, the Missile Defense Agency, and Space Development
Agency. The committee notes that such spaceports improve the
resiliency of U.S. launch infrastructure and help ensure
consistent access to space to support national security space
priorities.
The committee recognizes the number of unique benefits that
each FAA-licensed spaceport provides to the national security
space program. The PSCA remains the only commercial polar
launch range available in the United States, offering both
orbital and sub-orbital capabilities. The committee applauds
the use of the PSCA to conduct tests of both the Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense system in 2017 as well as the Space and
Missile Defense Command Advanced Hypersonic Weapon in 2014.
PSCA has become a force multiplier in being the alternative
West Coast range to Vandenberg AFB, providing additional
capacity to test national security missions from an existing
spaceport.
The MARS at Wallops Island, Virginia, provides medium-class
and small-class launch capabilities for the DOD with its agency
partners. The MARS provides assured and responsive access to
mid-to-low inclination orbits for payloads up to 15,300 lbs.
The committee supports the National Reconnaissance Office's
planned launches of the L-111 and L-129 missions from MARS by
the end of 2019.
The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Burns Flat, Oklahoma,
is the only spaceport in the United States to have a civilian
FAA-approved Space Flight Corridor in the National Airspace
System. This Space Flight corridor is unique because it is not
within Military Operating Areas or within restricted airspace,
which provides an operational capability for space launch
operations and associated industries specialized in space-
related activities.
Spaceport America in New Mexico is a licensed inland
spaceport that provides surface-to-space open sky launches
landing in restricted flight zones. The New Mexico Spaceport is
located next to White Sands Missile Range (WMSR) where the DOD
controls the only restricted airspace in the country besides
the White House. The committee notes that the DOD has studied
hypervelocity testing at WSMR and its neighbor Spaceport
America, which has horizontal and vertical launch and landing
capabilities that hypervelocity vehicles require. The WSMR is
preparing environmental impact statements for inland flight
corridors that will be able to provide apogee-to-end-game
suborbital instrumented flight solutions.
The committee believes that it is also important for the
Department to diversify its launch options and capabilities to
include inland sites, as secure multimodal spaceports are
advantageous for future hypervelocity development. Significant
investments have been made at inland spaceports, which already
have the infrastructure in place to accommodate smaller space
launches for the Department.

Modification of enhancement of positioning, navigation, and timing
capacity (sec. 1613)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that military Global
Positioning System (GPS) user equipment terminals can
incorporate signals from the European Union's Galileo and
Japan's QZSS satellites, beginning with the implementation of
open system architecture solutions to provide for robust
positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT). The provision would
enable the Secretary to waive this requirement on a case-by-
case basis if certain criteria are met.
The provision would also direct the Secretary to ensure
that military GPS terminals can receive allied and non-allied
PNT signals, provided that analysis indicates that the benefits
outweigh the risks or that the risks can be appropriately
mitigated. The committee encourages the Secretary, in carrying
out this provision, to engage with relevant U.S. allies to
ensure technical compatibility and ability to receive the
signals.

Modification of term of Commander of Air Force Space Command (sec.
1614)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2279c(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to change
the term of the Commander, Air Force Space Command, from 6
years to 4 years. The committee is aware that the requirement
for the Commander to serve at least 6 years was established to
address fragmented and diffuse space leadership
responsibilities. However, the committee believes that progress
has been made in the renewed focus on space operations
leadership and that stability has been restored, and thus the
6-year requirement is no longer needed.

Annual report on Space Command and Control program (sec. 1615)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide annually a report on
progress in executing the acquisition strategy and assessment
of risk for the Space Command and Control program. The
acquisition strategy, including schedule and other performance
metrics, is that required by the Item of Special Interest on
Space Command and Control specified elsewhere in the committee
report. The report would be provided to the congressional
defense committees with the annual submission of the budget
request for fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2025.
The provision would also direct the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the acquisition strategy and annual
reports of the Secretary of the Air Force and provide a report
on the review at a time mutually agreed upon between the
congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General.
The committee notes that the Space Command and Control
program is more ambitious than its predecessor, the failed
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System program. Given the
increased scope, complexity, and ambition of the program, as
well as the checkered history of previous programs, the
committee believes that heightened oversight is required during
development.

Requirements for phase 2 of acquisition strategy for National Security
Space Launch program (sec. 1616)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
changes to the National Security Space Launch Program (NSSL)
Phase 2 procurement. This provision would ensure that the
original mission performance requirements proposed by the
acquisition authority remain as specified in support of agile
and effective launch support to the warfighter. The provision
would also limit awards for national security space launches
under the Launch Services Procurement Other Transaction
Authority agreement to a downselect of no more than two
providers. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary
of the Air Force to ensure that launch services are procured
from industry providers that utilize launch vehicles or
families of vehicles that meet all government requirements with
respect to delivery of required payloads to reference orbits.
The committee commends the Secretary of the Air Force for
demonstrated commitment to the policy of assured access to
space and for good stewardship of financial resources in the
Launch Services Agreement program. Assured access to space and
disciplined defense spending have increased importance in great
power competition with China and Russia.
The committee recognizes that unreliable commercial launch
market forecasts that do not adequately account for competition
and industrial base concerns have contributed to suboptimal
government decisions. Phase 2 must be conducted in a manner
that ensures that launch providers remain viable competitors
and strong contributors to the space industrial base.

Subtitle B--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities

Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (sec. 1621)

The committee recommends a provision that would redesignate
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence as the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security and Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security
respectively and make conforming changes to existing law.
The committee notes that the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence has assumed additional
responsibilities, to include personnel security, physical
security, industrial security, protection of classified
information and controlled unclassified information, and
security clearance investigations, and believes that the
redesignation more appropriately reflects its current
responsibilities. The committee does not intend for this
provision to modify the authorities, responsibilities, roles,
or missions of the aforementioned Under Secretary.

Repeal of certain requirements relating to integration of Department of
Defense intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities (sec. 1622)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 426 of title 10, United States Code, which requires the
establishment of the Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) Integration Council. The committee notes
that the Department of Defense established the Defense
Intelligence and Security Integration Council (DISIC). The
DISIC is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence and its membership comprises officials from the
defense intelligence enterprise; the DISIC is responsible for
conducting recurring reviews to improve integration and
coordination across the defense intelligence enterprise. In
light of the establishment of the DISIC as a successor
organization to the ISR Integration Council, the committee
believes that the statutory requirement in section 426 of title
10, United States Code, is no longer necessary. The committee
expects the Secretary of Defense to periodically update the
committee on the activities of the DISIC.

Improving the onboarding methodology for certain intelligence personnel
(sec. 1623)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence,
consistent with Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25, as
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act, to provide several reports relating to the onboarding
methodology for certain intelligence personnel.

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency activities on
facilitating access to local criminal records historical data
(sec. 1624)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Director of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security
Agency to carry out a set of activities relating to
facilitating access by the Agency to local criminal records
historical data in support of its personnel security mission.
The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act is an increase
of $15.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-wide, to support the set of activities
authorized in this section.

Subtitle C--Cyberspace-Related Matters

Reorientation of Big Data Platform program (sec. 1631)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to reorient the Department of Defense's
Big Data Platform program by establishing a common baseline and
security classification scheme for the collection, querying,
analysis, and accessibility of a common and comprehensive set
of metadata from sensors, applications, and systems deployed
across the Department of Defense Information Network.
The committee recognizes the potential of the Big Data
Platform technology as a cyber situational awareness tool but
is frustrated by the current status of its use across the
Department of Defense. Big Data Platform instances are not fed
key metadata for analysis and querying, are segregated from one
another, and function, within the Department's cybersecurity
architecture, largely as incident response tools at the
component-level rather than real-time situational awareness
tools at the enterprise-level.

Zero-based review of Department of Defense cyber and information
technology personnel (sec. 1632)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
heads of Department of Defense departments, agencies, and
components to complete zero-based reviews of the cyber and
information technology personnel in those departments,
agencies, and components. The reviews would: (1) Assess
military, civilian, and contractor positions and personnel
performing cyber and information technology missions in the
Department for efficacy, efficiency, and relevance; (2) Analyze
capability gaps; and (3) Recommend road maps for correcting
these gaps. The committee is aware of the growth of
cybersecurity personnel in the Department of Defense over the
past few years but is concerned that some of these roles may be
duplicative or no longer necessary as cybersecurity approaches
have evolved.
The provision would require that these reviews be completed
and submitted to the Principal Cyber Adviser (PCA), Chief
Information Officer (CIO), and Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)) by January 1, 2021. After
receiving the findings of these reviews, the PCA, CIO, and USD
(P&R) would provide recommendations on the implementation of
these road maps to the heads of the Department of Defense
departments, agencies, and components and would oversee and
assist in the implementation of these roadmaps and
recommendations.

Study on improving cyber career paths in the Navy (sec. 1633)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study on improving cyber
career paths in the Navy. The provision would also require the
Secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, no later than October 1, 2020, on the findings of
the study.
The committee is aware of the independent Cybersecurity
Readiness Review that was commissioned by the Secretary of the
Navy, and completed earlier this year, to examine cybersecurity
readiness across the Navy in the areas of culture, people,
structure, processes, and resources. The committee applauds the
Navy for conducting this review to recommend areas where the
Navy can improve its cybersecurity readiness. The committee
believes that conducting this review is an important step in
increasing the Navy's cybersecurity and encourages the
Secretary to quickly develop an implementation plan to address
the recommendations in the review. The committee is
particularly concerned about the findings related to the cyber
workforce. The committee is concerned that the Navy lags behind
the Army and the Air Force in charting career paths for
military and civilian personnel designed to generate expertise
in offensive and defensive cyber warfare.

Framework to enhance cybersecurity of the United States defense
industrial base (sec. 1634)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a consistent, comprehensive
framework to enhance the cybersecurity of the U.S. defense
industrial base and to provide the congressional defense
committees a briefing on the framework not later than March 11,
2020. The provision would require the Secretary, in the
development of this framework, to consult with industry groups
and contractors in the defense industrial base as well as the
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). The framework would include: (1) Identification of
cybersecurity standards and requirements imposed on the defense
industrial base; (2) Responsibilities of the prime contractor
and all subcontractors in the supply chain for implementing
those standards and requirements; (3) A plan to provide
cybersecurity guidance and assistance to contractors; and (4)
Methods and programs for defining and managing controlled
unclassified information.
The provision would also mandate that the Department of
Defense (DOD): (1) Provide a plan that includes direct
technical support or assistance to contractors in complying
with the new framework; (2) Consider how to tailor
cybersecurity requirements for small contractors based on risk;
(3) Consider how to provide additional assistance to small
companies in the form of training, mentoring, and other
measures; and (4) Evaluate both incentives and penalties for
prime contractors and subcontractors for cybersecurity
performance. Finally, the provision requires that the Secretary
of Defense provide quarterly updates on the status of
development and implementation of the framework. The committee
recognizes that small companies are in general challenged by a
lack of resources, both monetary and technical, to meet
cybersecurity requirements. The committee emphasizes that the
DOD must exercise care to ensure that its policies and
procedures preserve and protect its industrial base rather than
diminish it.
The committee is concerned that contractors within the
defense industrial base are an inviting target for our
adversaries, who have been conducting cyberattacks to steal
critical military technologies. Currently, the Department of
Defense mandates that defense contractors meet the requirements
of NIST Special Publication 800-171 but does not audit
compliance to this standard. The committee is concerned that
prime contractors are not overseeing their subcontractors'
compliance with these cybersecurity requirements through the
entire supply chain and that the Department lacks access to
information about its contractors' subcontractors. The
committee believes that prime contractors need to be held
responsible and accountable for securing Department of Defense
technology and sensitive information and for delivering
products and capabilities that are uncompromised. Developing a
framework to enhance the cybersecurity of the defense
industrial base will serve as an important first step toward
securing the supply chain.

Role of Chief Information Officer in improving enterprise-wide
cybersecurity (sec. 1635)

The committee recommends a provision that would specify the
responsibilities of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) as they
relate to the Department of Defense's (DOD) cybersecurity.
Section 909 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) clarified that the CIO is
responsible for the information technology, networking,
information assurance, cybersecurity, and cyber capability
architectures of the DOD and provided a budget review authority
to the CIO to carry out these responsibilities. This provision
would levy additional responsibilities on the CIO for these
architectures, including the modernization of the Department's
cybersecurity architecture, the mandating of cybersecurity data
sharing, and the acquisition of additional computing
infrastructure to meet the Department's cybersecurity needs.
The committee is encouraged by the current CIO's commitment
to moving the Department's computing infrastructure to the
cloud, to driving forward its artificial intelligence
initiative, and to modernizing its cybersecurity. The committee
believes that the latter in particular is of paramount
importance and demands the CIO's highest priority. The
Department has for years struggled to achieve private sector-
standard cybersecurity of its unclassified networks despite
considerable investment and efforts. Much of this is due to the
sheer size and diversity of the Department's networks, which
pose substantial challenges to cybersecurity architects and
operators at the enterprise-level.
As a result, the Department maintains extensive and
expensive cybersecurity capabilities on its perimeter; manages
network operations through the Joint Regional Security Stacks,
which the most recent Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation report described as ``unable to help network
defenders protect the network against operationally realistic
[cyberattacks]''; relies on cybersecurity service providers'
security operations centers to monitor local network activity;
deploys cyber protection teams to critical networks, often in
response to suspected malicious activity; and relies on myriad
endpoint defense products to defend against cyberattacks at the
edge. These layers are typically disjointed and connected only
through manual instructions from operator to operator. The
Department's cybersecurity architecture is thus characterized
by inconsistency, opacity, confusion, labor-intensity, and
misalignment of resources.
The committee recognizes that management of this
architecture necessarily requires coordination with the
Principal Cyber Advisor and the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command
but reiterates that the responsibility for the architecture
lies, in statute, with the CIO. The committee thus urges the
CIO to aggressively work to modernize the Department's
cybersecurity architecture to improve enterprise-level
visibility, command and control, and operations. This
modernization will require substantial reconfiguration of
component-level budgets and activities; the committee expects
the CIO to use his budget authority widely and effectively to
effect this necessary transformation. This modernization will
also require reevaluation and rationalization of existing
Department-wide cybersecurity programs, capabilities, and
operations, including the Joint Regional Security Stacks, Host
Based Security System, Joint Forces Headquarters-Department of
Defense Information Network, the cyber protection teams, and
the cybersecurity service providers.

Quarterly assessments of the readiness of cyber forces (sec. 1636)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop metrics for the assessment of
the readiness of the Cyber Mission Force and to brief the
congressional defense committees on these metrics within 90
days of the enactment of this Act. The provision would also
require the briefing of readiness of the Cyber Mission Force,
informed by these metrics, as part of the quarterly cyber
operations updates, effective 180 days after the enactment of
this Act.
The committee applauds the Cyber Mission Force's recent
achievement of full operational capability. As these teams
continue to mature, the committee believes that it is important
to develop and report a standard set of metrics to address the
Department's ability to conduct cyberspace operations based on
capability and capacity of personnel, equipment, training, and
equipment condition. The committee believes that these
readiness reporting metrics should be standard across the
Services and should be consistent with readiness reporting
throughout the Department. The committee also believes that it
is important for these metrics to be reported as part of the
quarterly cyber operations briefings to provide context to
current operations. The committee recognizes that the Cyber
Mission Force's mission posture--including the accesses and
tools developed by and available to the National Mission Teams
and Combat Mission Teams, the responsiveness of the Cyber
Protection Teams, and the operational effectiveness of these
teams--is distinct from its readiness but also expects to be
kept apprised of this mission posture through its cyber
quarterly briefings.

Control and analysis of Department of Defense data stolen through
cyberspace (sec. 1637)

The committee recommends a provision that would define
requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD) in the event
that DOD data have been stolen or are suspected to have been
stolen via cyber means. The provision provides a series of
requirements for the DOD when it directly controls the data or
access to the data. The provision would further require that,
when the DOD does not have unilateral control of the data and
when law enforcement or intelligence community information
controls have been imposed on the handling of and access to the
data, the Secretary of Defense coordinate with the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or Director of
National Intelligence (DNI), as appropriate, to carry out the
same series of requirements.
The committee is aware of a number of incidents in which
critical data were stolen from DOD contractors but the
Department was very slow to: (1) Inform the appropriate
leadership in the Department; (2) Inform the Congress; (3)
Assess the damage resulting from the breach; and (4) Launch
counterintelligence and other remediation efforts to correct
the damage. In some cases, the Congress has learned of such
breaches from media reports months after the events, only to
find that DOD leaders remain in the dark. One reason for this
unacceptable pattern of tardiness is that law enforcement and
intelligence community controls are placed on access to the
data and on knowledge of the breach. Access to the data may be
limited to a small number of DOD subject matter experts who
have to be cleared for access to the data and physically
deployed to a hosted repository with limited query and analysis
tools.
The committee believes that for all significant breaches
involving the loss or potential loss of critical DOD
information, the Department should gain control of the data
that have been or potentially have been exfiltrated, place in a
modern data center, apply modern information technology tools
to analyze the data rapidly to determine the nature and
severity of the incident, ensure that appropriate officials are
fully informed, and devise and implement rapid countermeasures
and remediation measures. These data transfers, analyses, and
countermeasures can and must be conducted in a highly secure
manner, with access limited to those with an appropriate need-
to-know. These measures, and DOD's security controls, do not
need to interfere with law enforcement investigations, and
DOD's national security equities must be given just weight by
DOD's partners in dealing with serious breaches.
The committee thus urges the Secretary of Defense to
institutionalize the requirements of this provision through
formal agreements with the Director of the FBI and the DNI that
accommodate all parties' relevant counterintelligence and
mission requirements.

Accreditation standards and processes for cybersecurity and information
technology products and services (sec. 1638)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) Chief Information Officer (CIO) to
assess the accreditation standards and processes of the
military departments and other components of the DOD for
cybersecurity and information technology products and services.
The provision would also require the CIO to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees on the assessment by April
1, 2020.
The committee is aware that the DOD utilizes different
accreditation standards (e.g., Risk Management Framework,
Development Security Operations or DevSecOps) and processes
(e.g., reciprocity) for cybersecurity and information
technology products and services, depending on whether they are
custom-built or commercial off-the-shelf products. Disparity in
standards and duplication of testing often result in delays,
complexity, and inefficiency. The committee believes that it is
important to streamline the accreditation process to enable the
DOD to more quickly adopt cutting-edge cybersecurity tools
across the DOD enterprise.

Extension of authorities for Cyberspace Solarium Commission (sec. 1639)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1652 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) by
making a technical correction and changing the final due date
for the Cyberspace Solarium Commission's final report to
February 1, 2020. The committee recognizes that the commission
had its first meeting in early April and needs an extension in
order to fully study the immensely complex issues that it has
been tasked to contemplate. The committee hopes to receive the
commission's final report and the Secretary of Defense's, the
Director of National Intelligence's, and the Secretary of
Homeland Security's assessments of the report's findings in
time to inform the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021.

Modification of elements of assessment required for termination of
dual-hat arrangement for Commander of the United States Cyber
Command (sec. 1640)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1642 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) by requiring the
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
prior to the termination of the dual-hatted arrangement in
which the Commander of United States Cyber Command serves as
the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), to certify
that: (1) Processes to deconflict military cyber operations and
national intelligence operations have been put in place; (2)
Tools, weapons, and accesses used in and available for military
cyber operations are sufficient for achieving required effects
and United States Cyber Command is capable of acquiring or
developing these tools, weapons, and accesses; and (3) The
Cyber Mission Force has demonstrated the capacity to execute
the cyber missions of the Department, including the execution
of national-level missions through cyberspace, defense of the
Department of Defense Information Network, and support for
other combatant commands, including targeting of adversary
military assets.
The committee is encouraged by recent mission successes of
Cyber Command, enabled by close cooperation with the NSA. The
committee believes that Cyber Command is, however, still
maturing as a combatant command and still relies on a strong
partnership with NSA to execute the Department of Defense's
cyber strategy. The committee therefore believes that
eliminating the dual-hat arrangement would be premature at this
time. As Cyber Command becomes increasingly active, it will
continue to rely on the NSA's intelligence, tools, and weapons.
The termination of the Cyber Command-NSA dual-hat could
complicate this critical relationship. The committee therefore
believes that the dual-hat should be preserved until Cyber
Command demonstrates the ability to acquire its own
capabilities and carry out its missions effectively.

Use of National Security Agency cybersecurity expertise to support
acquisition of commercial cybersecurity products (sec. 1641)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
as a mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) the advising
and assistance of the Department of Defense (DOD) in its
acquisition and adaptation of cybersecurity products and
services from industry, especially the commercial cybersecurity
sector.
The committee believes that the entire DOD, and especially
the NSA, should leverage the considerable investment,
development, and talent in the commercial cybersecurity
industry to satisfy the Department's cybersecurity
requirements. The Congress has legislated the formal preference
for the acquisition of commercial items in the past, most
notably in section 8104 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), but the Department too often
continues to develop its own hardware and software, including
for cybersecurity capabilities. The Department still relies on
internally engineered solutions and custom-developed products
and services from traditional defense contractors, despite the
fact that commercial cybersecurity products and services often
outperform these capabilities, scale better, tend to be more
supportable, and ultimately cost less. The committee believes
that the Department must therefore become a more educated
consumer of commercially available and deployed cybersecurity
products and services. In order to do so effectively, the NSA
must assist the Department. As the Department's largest center
of technical cybersecurity expertise, the NSA is uniquely
positioned to do so, as shown by their successful utilization
of commercially-available cybersecurity products in SharkSeer.

Study on future cyber warfighting capabilities of Department of Defense
(sec. 1642)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to direct the Defense Science Board to
carry out a study on the future cyber warfighting capabilities
of the Department of Defense (DOD). The provision would also
require the Secretary to provide the Board with timely access
to appropriate resources to conduct the analysis. The provision
would require the Board to submit a final report on the study
to the Secretary no later than October 1, 2021, and would
direct the Secretary to submit the report to the congressional
defense committees, along with any comments he may have, no
later than November 1, 2021. The Board's study would include:
(1) A technical evaluation of the Joint Cyber Warfighting
Architecture (JCWA) of the DOD; (2) A technical evaluation of
the Department's tool development and acquisition programs; (3)
An evaluation of the operational planning and targeting of U.S.
Cyber Command; and (4) Recommendations for legislative and
administrative action relating to the DOD's future cyber
warfighting capabilities.
The committee supports the acquisition of cutting-edge
cyberspace warfighting capabilities in the development of the
JCWA but is concerned that the effort to develop this joint
warfighting vision is disjointed. Specifically, the committee
is concerned that aspects of the JCWA, including the Unified
Platform, Joint Cyber Command and Control, and Persistent Cyber
Training Environment, may lack cohesion with the Cyber Mission
Force and that individual components controlled by the Services
are not appropriately synchronized with the JCWA vision.
Therefore, the committee expects that these and the
Department's other future programs, capabilities, and
operations support U.S. Cyber Command's joint warfighting
strategy and the Department's larger cyber strategy.

Authority to use operation and maintenance funds for cyber operations-
peculiar capability development projects (sec. 1643)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretaries of military departments to use money authorized for
appropriation for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) to develop
cyber operations-peculiar capabilities up to $3.0 million
annually. The provision would allow the Department of Defense
(DOD) to use its O&M funds for the rapid creation, testing,
fielding, and operation of cyber capabilities that would be
developed and used within the 1-year appropriation period.
The committee believes that cyberspace threats are a
continuing concern for the DOD, and, while the Services are
working to develop agile teams to respond to cyberspace threats
and opportunities, cyber capability development is hamstrung by
an acquisition funding process that is often incompatible with
real-time operations and innovation. The committee understands
that current law often requires coordinated use of up to three
different types of funding: Research, Development, Testing, and
Evaluation, O&M, and Procurement. Coordinated use of multiple
types of funds can lead to bureaucratic requirements and
reviews that ultimately hamper cyber capability development
within operationally relevant timeframes. The committee
believes that using O&M funds for these purposes can increase
operational flexibility and reduce planning and budgeting
overhead.

Expansion of authority for access and information relating to
cyberattacks on Department of Defense operationally critical
contractors (sec. 1644)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 391 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to react immediately
to reports of intrusions that may affect critical DOD data. The
committee understands the importance of commercial service
providers to the DOD and believes that the security and
integrity of these providers is absolutely critical to the
effective management of the worldwide logistics enterprise,
especially during a contingency or wartime. Therefore, the
committee believes that the same level of proactive DOD support
in responding to cyber incidents should be authorized with
respect to these providers as that authorized for cleared
defense contractors.

Briefing on memorandum of understanding relating to joint operational
planning and control of cyber attacks of national scale (sec.
1645)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing, not later than
March 1, 2020, to the congressional defense and homeland
security committees on the Joint Department of Defense (DOD)
and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), signed by the Secretary of Defense on
October 6, 2018.
The committee supports the DOD-DHS MOU but is concerned
that it does not fully address the need for joint operational
planning for major cyberattacks on the country or for unity of
effort and rapid response to such attacks. The committee is
also unclear as to whether the National Cyber Strategy,
published in September 2018, provides for a standing joint
multi-agency organization and staff to plan and direct
operational responses to cyberattacks of national scale.

Study to determine the optimal strategy for structuring and manning
elements of the Joint Force Headquarters-Cyber organizations,
Joint Mission Operations Centers, and Cyber Operations-
Integrated Planning Elements (sec. 1646)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) to conduct
a study to determine the optimal strategy for structuring and
manning elements of the following: (1) Joint Force
Headquarters-Cyber organizations; (2) Joint Mission Operations
Centers; and (3) Cyber Operations-Integrated Planning Elements.
The provision would require the PCA to submit a report on the
study to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives no later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

Cyber governance structures and Principal Cyber Advisors on military
cyber force matters (sec. 1647)

The committee recommends a provision that would require
each secretary of the military departments to designate a
Principal Cyber Advisor to act as the principal advisor to the
secretary on the cyber forces, cyber programs, and
cybersecurity matters of the military department, including
matters relating to weapons systems, enabling infrastructure,
and the defense industrial base. The committee encourages the
secretaries to consider designating an existing official, such
as the deputy undersecretary of the military department or the
chief information officer of the military department. The
provision would require each secretary to review the military
department's current governance model for cybersecurity with
respect to current authorities and responsibilities. The
provision would also require each secretary to brief the
congressional defense committees on the findings of the review
no later than February 1, 2021.

Designation of test networks for testing and accreditation of
cybersecurity products and services (sec. 1648)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to designate three test networks for the
testing and accreditation of cybersecurity products and
services. The committee understands the importance of test
networks in facilitating the consistent and timely
accreditation of cutting-edge cybersecurity tools for the
defense of the Department of Defense networks.

Consortia of universities to advise Secretary of Defense on
cybersecurity matters (sec. 1649)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
one or more consortia to advise and assist the Secretary of
Defense on matters relating to cybersecurity. The consortium or
consortia established under shall consist of universities that
have been designated as centers of academic excellence by the
Director of the National Security Agency or the Secretary of
Homeland Security. The functions of the consortium are (1) to
provide to the Secretary access to the expertise of the members
of the consortium on matters relating to cybersecurity; (2) to
align the efforts of consortia members in support of the
Department of Defense; and (3) to act as a facilitator in
responding to Department requests relating to advice and
assistance on matters relating to cybersecurity and to provide
feedback to the Secretary from members of the consortium.

Subtitle D--Nuclear Forces

Modification of authorities relating to nuclear command, control, and
communications system (sec. 1661)

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer
statutory responsibility for policy, oversight, and
coordination for nuclear command, control, and communications
(NC3) programs from the Chief Information Officer of the
Department of Defense to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment. This change would align the
statute to reflect the Department's plan to improve governance
of the NC3 system and the re-assignment of the NC3 Principal
Staff Assistant role to the Under Secretary of Acquisition and
Sustainment.

Expansion of officials required to conduct biennial assessments of
delivery platforms for nuclear weapons and nuclear command and
control system (sec. 1662)

The committee recommends a provision that would add the
Commander of the United States Air Forces in Europe to a list
of officials required to report biennially on the safety,
security, reliability, sustainability, performance, and
military effectiveness of the delivery platforms for nuclear
weapons and nuclear command and control systems for which each
official has responsibility.
The committee does not intend to create a requirement for
additional inspections. Instead, this provision is intended to
require the aggregation and submittal to the Congress of data
gathered on the current inspection schedule.

Conforming amendment to Council on Oversight of the National Leadership
Command, Control, and Communications System (sec. 1663)

The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain conforming changes to the governing statute of the
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System, section 171a of title 10,
United States Code.

Prohibition on reduction of the intercontinental ballistic missiles of
the United States (sec. 1664)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2020 funds to
reduce the responsiveness, alert level, or quantity of deployed
U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles to fewer than 400. The
provision would provide an exception to this prohibition for
activities related to maintenance and sustainment and
activities to ensure safety, security, or reliability.

Briefing on long-range standoff weapon and sea-launched cruise missile
(sec. 1665)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in
consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security, to
provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a briefing on opportunities to
increase commonality between the long-range standoff weapon
(LRSO) and the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and
to leverage technologies developed in the course of the LRSO
program for the SLCM-N.

Sense of the Senate on industrial base for Ground-Based Strategic
Deterrent program (sec. 1666)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that maintaining a viable domestic
industrial base for large solid rocket motors is in the
national security interest of the United States and that, in
carrying out the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program, the
Secretary of Defense should strive to maintain competition and
otherwise act to preserve the industrial base.

Sense of the Senate on nuclear deterrence commitments of the United
States (sec. 1667)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that dual-capable aircraft (DCA) provide
visible assurance to allies and serve as a tangible
demonstration of U.S. extended deterrence guarantees.
As part of its commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), the United States currently maintains a
small number of forward-deployed DCA and nonstrategic nuclear
weapons in European countries. Though limited in size, the
committee continues to believe the DCA mission is an essential
component of U.S. and NATO defense postures. The Department
plans to sustain this capability by replacing the current aging
DCA with nuclear-capable F-35 aircraft, and the President's
budget request for fiscal year 2020 included $71.3 million as
part of an ongoing effort to certify the F-35A for this
mission.
The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review introduced two new
supplemental nuclear capabilities in response to a
deteriorating threat environment and perceived gaps in U.S.
deterrence posture. The committee believes that the F-35A,
particularly when armed with the life-extended B61-12 nuclear
bomb, will significantly enhance regional deterrence posture
and that accelerating the deployment of this capability could
provide a treaty-compliant response to changing threat
conditions that also assures NATO allies of U.S. commitment to
their security.
Accordingly, not later than January 15, 2020, the committee
directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air
Force, to provide a report assessing the feasibility and
advisability of accelerating activities necessary to certify
the F-35A to perform DCA operations.

Subtitle E--Missile Defense Programs

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli cooperative
missile defense program co-development and co-production (sec.
1671)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
not more than $95.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) to provide to the Government of Israel to procure
components for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system
through co-production of such components in the United States.
The provision would also authorize $50.0 million for the MDA to
provide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the
David's Sling Weapon System and $55.0 million for the Arrow 3
Upper Tier Interceptor Program, including for co-production of
parts and components in the United States by U.S. industry. The
provision would also provide a series of certification
requirements relating to implementation of the below relevant
bilateral agreements before disbursal of these funds. These
funds are a subset of the $500.0 million total authorized to be
appropriated for cooperative missile defense programs with
Israel within this Act.
The committee acknowledges that the September 14, 2016,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and
Israel commits $500.0 million in U.S. funding for cooperative
missile defense programs annually, beginning in fiscal year
2019 and ending in fiscal year 2028. According to the MOU, the
United States and Israel jointly understand that any U.S. funds
provided for such programs should be made available according
to separate bilateral agreements for the Iron Dome, David's
Sling, and Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program and should
maximize co-production of parts and components in the United
States at a level equal to or greater than 50 percent of U.S.-
appropriated funds for production. Additionally, Israel commits
not to seek additional missile defense funding from the United
States for the duration of the MOU, except in exceptional
circumstances as may be jointly agreed by the United States and
Israel. The committee expects to continue to receive annual
updates on all cooperative defense programs, as delineated in
the MOU, to include progress reports and spending plans as well
as the top-line figures of the Israel Missile Defense
Organization budget for these programs.

Expansion of national missile defense policy and program redesignation
(sec. 1672)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate regarding the threat to U.S. national
security from ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles. The
provision would also modify the statement of policy contained
in section 1681 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to include defense
against cruise and hypersonic missiles and would require the
Secretary of Defense to redesignate all strategies, policy,
programs, and systems to reflect this policy.

Acceleration of the deployment of persistent space-based sensor
architecture (sec. 1673)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should
rapidly develop and deploy a persistent, space-based sensor
architecture as soon as technically feasible. The provision
would also require the Secretary of Defense to assign to the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) the primary
responsibility for the development and deployment of a
hypersonic and ballistic tracking space sensor (HBTSS). The
provision would also require the Comptroller and the Director
for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to certify to the
congressional defense committees whether the HBTSS program is
fully funded in the future years defense program submitted with
the fiscal year 2021 budget request. The provision would also
require the Director of the MDA to begin on-orbit testing of an
HBTSS no later than December 31, 2021, with allowance for a
waiver if the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees a report including a number of elements.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to submit a
report on efforts relating to space-based sensing and tracking
capabilities for missile defense at the MDA, the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Air Force, and the Space
Development Agency.

Nonstandard acquisition processes of Missile Defense Agency (sec. 1674)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate in support of the nonstandard acquisition
processes used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The
provision would also prohibit obligation or expenditure of
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to change these
processes until the Secretary of Defense has consulted with a
number of senior defense officials with responsibility for
aspects of missile defense, submitted a report to the
congressional defense committees, and allowed 270 days to
elapse after submittal of the report.

Plan for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (sec. 1675)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the delay in the
Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) program, including: (1) A
description of the reason for the delay; (2) An overview of the
revised program schedule; (3) Any recommendations for
accelerating the fielding schedule; (4) A timeline, any
additional funding required, and a risk assessment for such
recommendations; and (5) Any recommendations suggested by
contractors to the Director that were not adopted and an
explanation as to why.
The committee supports the MDA's efforts to continue to
improve the reliability, producibility, and maintainability of
a more effective kill vehicle for the ground-based midcourse
defense system, including by leveraging mature technologies
from fielded systems when appropriate, in order to better
defend the homeland from long-range ballistic missile threats.

Report on improving ground-based midcourse defense element of ballistic
missile defense system (sec. 1676)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to submit a report on
options to increase the capability, capacity, and reliability
of the ground-based midcourse defense element of the U.S.
ballistic missile defense system.

Sense of the Senate on recent Missile Defense Agency tests (sec. 1677)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on a highly successful 2018 Missile Defense
Agency flight test campaign.

Sense of the Senate on missile defense technology development
priorities (sec. 1678)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the importance of advanced missile
defense technologies to preventing and defeating the rapidly
expanding offensive missile threat.

Publication of environmental impact statement prepared for certain
potential future missile defense sites (sec. 1679)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to make available to the public the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared in accordance
with section 227(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
The committee notes that section 227 required the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) to evaluate candidate sites for a
potential future deployment of additional ground-based
interceptors for homeland missile defense, including
preparation of the EIS for each potential Continental
Interceptor Site. This provision would require the Secretary to
publish the EIS in a publicly available format.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Matters relating to military operations in the information environment
(sec. 1681)

The committee recommends a provision that would affirm the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to conduct military
operations in the information environment, including
clandestine operations, to defend the United States, its
allies, and its interests, including in response to malicious
activities carried out against the United States or a United
States person by a foreign power. The provision would also
clarify that military operations in the information environment
are traditional military activities for the purposes of section
503(e)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 80-
253).
The committee believes that military operations in the
information environment are traditional military activities and
are essential contributors to military effectiveness in modern
warfare. The committee thus sees military operations in the
information environment as key to the National Defense Strategy
and its implementation.

Extension of authorization for protection of certain facilities and
assets from unmanned aircraft (sec. 1682)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an
extension of the authorization for protection of certain
facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft.

Hard and deeply buried targets (sec. 1683)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to the
congressional defense committees a classified report on hard
and deeply buried targets, including an estimate of the total
number of high-value targets and an assessment of the current
ability to hold such targets at risk using existing and
projected U.S. nuclear and conventional capabilities. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan to ensure that the United States is able to hold
such targets at risk by 2025 and to certify annually that such
plan is being implemented.

Items of Special Interest

Acquisition plan for Space Command and Control program

The committee is concerned that the Space Command and
Control program is more ambitious than its failed predecessor,
the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System (JMS) program.
The Space Command and Control program is software-intensive and
intended to replace numerous legacy program requirements that
the JMS failed to address. Due to the increased scope and
ambition of the program, as well as the checkered history of
previous program development, the committee believes that
heightened oversight is required during the early phases of
development.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to develop an acquisition strategy for the Space Command
and Control program and provide a report on this strategy to
the congressional defense committees, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and the Comptroller
General of the United States no later than October 31, 2019.
The report on the acquisition strategy shall include: (1)
An acquisition schedule over the next future years defense
program; (2) The requirements for each phase of acquisition,
including critical management events; (3) A description of the
structure of the program, including development, testing,
production, integration, and life-cycle support for the
program; (4) The metrics to be tracked and evaluated and the
means and manner in which such metrics shall be reported,
including any necessary software to be developed or acquired;
and (5) The assignment of management and oversight
responsibilities and authorities to ensure coordination and
synchronization of development efforts across Air Force
components; and (6) The amount of funds necessary to carry out
the program across the future years defense program and a
description of the contracting and business strategies to be
implemented, including the integration of commercially
available products.
The committee notes the requirement for continued annual
reports with reviews and reports by the Comptroller General of
the United States is found elsewhere in this Act.

Addressing the Department of Defense's cyber red team vulnerabilities

The committee recognizes the importance of crowdsourced
security testing programs, such as Hack the Pentagon, that
utilize technology platforms and ethical security researchers
to test for cyber vulnerabilities within the Department of
Defense (DOD). Third party security researchers could offer the
DOD supplemental manpower and expertise needed to find cyber
vulnerabilities in weapon platforms, databases of personally
identifiable information, health data repositories, and other
critical DOD systems in order to fix these vulnerabilities. The
committee is aware that the Department funded a multi-year
effort to enhance the scope of third-party cyber testing but
that resources given to the program are insufficient to address
the sheer size and scope of potential vulnerabilities.
Therefore, in order to better secure the Department from
cyberattacks and vulnerabilities, the committee encourages the
Department to broaden its use of third party crowdsourced
security platforms where necessary and appropriate to inform
cybersecurity priorities, policy, and requirements.

Airborne Launch Control System sustainment

The Airborne Launch Control System (ALCS) and its trainer
were built in the 1980s and still rely on 8-bit processors,
which industry no longer supports. There is also a diminishing
number of experts that can rebuild the existing units, which
must last through the recapitalization of the E-6B aircraft. In
addition, the single trainer for this system is housed at
Offutt Air Force Base and was severely damaged during the
recent flood. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to provide a briefing, not later than February
28, 2020, to the congressional defense committees on the supply
chain to support continued use of the current ALCS and efforts
to rebuild the trainer unit.

Assessment of replacement of E-4B and E-6 aircraft

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
conducting an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to determine the
path forward for replacing the E-4B and E-6 aircraft, which
perform crucial missions for nuclear command, control, and
communications and require timely recapitalization. The
committee also understands that the Navy and Air Force are
assessing options that include combining both missions onto a
single aircraft or moving either or both to an executive
airlift platform. Given the importance of the mission and the
long duration, span of requirements, and cost of this effort,
the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to undertake a multi-year effort to monitor this
program, including mission, requirements, cost, scope, and
schedule. The committee directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing on the preliminary findings of this effort
to the congressional defense committees no later than March 1,
2020, with a first year report to follow at a time agreed to at
the briefing. Since the committee expects that this will be a
long-term effort, an out-year reporting schedule will also be
agreed upon at the time of the delivery of the preliminary
findings.
Additionally, not later than 60 days after the completion
of the ongoing AoA, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees on the study's results and associated next steps.

Assessment of the cybersecurity of Department of Defense classified
networks

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has deployed a substantial number and variety of cybersecurity
sensors, systems, and applications on the unclassified networks
of the Department of Defense Information Network (DODIN) and
collects large volumes of data and metadata about activities on
the unclassified DODIN that are analyzed to detect cyber
intrusions. However, the Department has not similarly actively
defended the Secret and Sensitive Compartmentalized Information
(SCI) levels of the DODIN, relying instead on the separation of
these levels from the public Internet for cybersecurity.
The committee directs the Chief Information Officer, in
coordination with the Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) and the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, to conduct an analysis and
provide the results to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees no later than March 1, 2020, comparing
and contrasting the levels of cybersecurity on the DODIN
networks carrying unclassified, Secret, and SCI data. The
analysis should assess: (1) Whether air-gapping or isolating
classified networks is a sufficient cybersecurity measure; (2)
Whether classified networks should have increased levels of
protection in light of current and future threats; (3) Whether
these enhancements, if necessary, should be the same as or
similar to cybersecurity defenses deployed on DOD unclassified
networks or whether classified networks demand unique or more
sophisticated cybersecurity measures; (4) How DOD cybersecurity
service providers and the Cyber Mission Force should posture
themselves to defend classified networks; and (5) What the
rough order of magnitude costs of any necessary enhancements
would be. The PCA Cross-Functional Team shall coordinate the
analysis and preparation of the report.

Briefing on integration of commercial satellite communications
capabilities

The committee supports the Department of Defense's (DOD)
continued efforts to integrate commercial satellite
communications (COMSATCOM) capabilities into the DOD satellite
communications (SATCOM) architecture and transition to a long-
term, integrated partnership with commercial operators. This
new approach is intended to ensure that the DOD receives the
best SATCOM value on a more secure, cost-effective, and
resilient basis. The committee commends the Air Force for its
ongoing efforts, including the transfer of COMSATCOM
procurement authority from the Defense Information Systems
Agency to Air Force Space Command. As the Department
recapitalizes its space architecture for wideband and protected
communications and transitions to greater reliance on
commercial capabilities, the committee encourages the
Department to prioritize adequate and stable funding for
related activities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives a briefing on efforts to
integrate COMSATCOM capabilities into the DOD SATCOM
architecture by March 15, 2020. The briefing shall include an
assessment of: (1) Clear lines of authority for integration of
COMSATCOM capabilities into a SATCOM architecture; (2) Tools
and technologies necessary to improve efficiency, resiliency,
usability, and functionality for the DOD COMSATCOM user
community; (3) Funding and resourcing required to adequately
prioritize and accelerate COMSATCOM integration; and (4)
Innovative acquisition approaches that enable long-term
arrangements for COMSATCOM services, consistent with existing
contracting authorities and appropriations law.

Briefing on Joint Cyber Command and Control program

The committee understands the importance of the Joint Cyber
Command and Control (JCC2) program for situational awareness
and battle management for cyberspace operations at the
operational and strategic levels. The committee is aware of
recent prototyping activities within U.S. Cyber Command to
leverage previous Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and
Strategic Capabilities Office efforts to meet this critical
need. The committee is encouraged by these efforts to use
technologies from Plan X and Project IKE as a prototype to
address these warfighting requirements. The committee believes
that these prototyping efforts could be leveraged as a
foundation for the JCC2 program. The committee therefore
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees no later than October 1, 2020,
on the plans to leverage previous prototyping efforts in the
JCC2 acquisition strategy.

Briefings on the status of replacement progress of the mobile ground
systems supporting the Space Based Infrared Satellite system

The committee is concerned about challenges in fielding the
mobile ground systems that support the Space Based Infrared
Satellite System program as well as the Nuclear Detonation
Detection System. These mobile ground systems are replacing
mobile ground systems from the 1980s, which have become
increasingly unsustainable and will soon be obsolete.
Programmatic delays have undermined the ability of these mobile
ground systems to meet requirements to deliver long-term, cost-
effective, multi-role, and multi-mission space effects to the
warfighter across the range of military operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to brief the congressional defense committees on the
fielding of these mobile ground systems by March 1, 2020, with
a follow-up briefing to be delivered by September 1, 2020.

Comptroller General assessment of cyber infrastructure programs

Over the last few years, the Department of Defense (DOD)
has begun to invest in numerous cyber capabilities that will be
integrated into the Joint Cyber Warfighting Architecture
(JCWA). Major components of the JCWA include cyber tools and
the Unified Platform, Joint Cyber Command and Control, and
Persistent Cyber Training Environment programs.
The committee supports the acquisition of cutting-edge
cyberspace capabilities but is concerned that a systemic
analytical approach is needed to ensure a sound and viable
cyber infrastructure architecture. The DOD must be able to
deliver new capabilities while meeting cost, schedule, and
performance targets. Given the importance, long duration, cost,
and span of requirements for the acquisition efforts pursuant
to the JCWA, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to undertake a multi-year effort to monitor
these programs, including mission, requirements, cost, scope,
and schedule.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing on the preliminary findings of this effort to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2020,
with a first year report to be submitted not later than
December 31, 2020. Since the committee expects that this will
be a long-term effort, an out-year reporting schedule will also
be agreed upon at the time of the delivery of the preliminary
findings.
The Comptroller General's review should address: (1) The
purpose, scope, and technical merits of the capabilities that
fit within the JCWA construct; (2) Their integration with
elements of the Cyber Mission Force, component-level
cybersecurity capabilities, and the Department's operational
and targeting concepts; (3) The extent to which these
capabilities are developed in a coordinated manner and are
compatible with new and existing systems, networks, and
capabilities; (4) How the DOD and the Services formulate
requirements for JCWA programs, including how they obtain
warfighter and operator input; and (5) The DOD's acquisition
strategies, including contracting and development approaches,
for satisfying these requirements.

Comptroller General report on readiness of the nuclear command,
control, and communications system

The committee understands that, while the Department of
Defense is working to modernize the nuclear command, control,
and communications (NC3) enterprise, the elements and systems
that currently make up this enterprise must also be sustained
and maintained. Examples of such elements and systems include
the extremely high frequency MILSTAR and Advanced Extremely
High Frequency satellite terminals, the Single Channel Anti-Jam
Man-Portable Extremely High Frequency Terminal, the Navy's E-6B
Mercury and Air Force's E-4B National Airborne Operations
Center aircraft, and very low frequency transmitter and
receiver systems. While the Department routinely evaluates the
performance of the overall NC3 system, the committee is
concerned that the Department does not have an integrated
picture of the operational availability of the individual
components that make up the system. The committee is also
unaware of any readiness reporting procedure to assess and
track the health of these individual systems across the
Department.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the readiness reporting procedures
for the elements and systems that comprise the NC3 enterprise.
The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing on the
preliminary findings of this review to the congressional
defense committees no later than March 1, 2020, with a final
report to follow at a time agreed to at the briefing.

Comptroller General study on weapon system cybersecurity

The committee understands the importance of appropriate
cybersecurity protections' incorporation in future Department
of Defense (DOD) major defense acquisition programs. The Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291)
directed the Department to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities
of major weapons systems of the Department of the Defense. The
committee has previously asked the Comptroller General of the
United States to conduct assessments on the cybersecurity of
major weapons systems. The Comptroller General found that these
programs and associated weapon systems are increasingly
networked and dependent on software, information technology,
and automation to achieve their intended performance, making
them vulnerable to a variety of cybersecurity threats. At the
same time, federal and contractor systems face a growing number
of cyber-based threats, including advanced persistent threats.
The Comptroller General also found that the DOD has not yet
determined how to address weapon systems cybersecurity and had
only recently begun requiring acquisition programs to define
and track the cybersecurity measures that they would employ to
protect their systems.
The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General to
continue its assessment of DOD efforts to improve the
cybersecurity of its major defense acquisition programs and to
brief the congressional defense committees annually on the
results, with recurring reports whose scope and timing may be
determined by the Comptroller General in consultation with the
congressional defense committees. These briefings and reports
may address a number of topics related to defense acquisitions
and weapon system cybersecurity, including program security
plans, requirements, weapon system design, DOD's use of
intelligence assessments to inform acquisition programs,
control system architectures, contractor protection of
government data and associated networks, related contracting
issues, and testing. The Comptroller General should consult
with the congressional defense committees to determine the
specific topics area or areas covered by each assessment.

Coordination of election cybersecurity efforts

The committee recognizes that foreign adversaries have
sought to use cyber operations, information operations, and
other espionage activities against the United States to
influence American elections and the democratic political
processes.
Section 1642 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) provides the National
Command Authority with the authority to disrupt, defeat, and
deter cyber attacks against the United States, including
attempts to influence American elections and democratic
political processes. Further, section 1650 of the same law
authorizes the Department of Defense to assign technical
personnel to the Department of Homeland Security to enhance
cybersecurity cooperation and unity of efforts with respect to
protection of critical infrastructure, including election
infrastructure.
The committee urges the Department of Defense to ensure
that it coordinates, consistent with applicable authorities and
policies, with the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the National Security Agency to
safeguard the resilience and integrity of American election
processes and infrastructure. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to make further use of its authorities to
provide technical assistance and information to the Department
of Homeland Security and other Federal entities to secure
election infrastructure and to support operational responses to
any malicious activities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the appropriate Federal agencies, to brief
the congressional defense committees on the coordination and
the status of the Department of Defense's efforts to support
interagency efforts to defend American election processes and
infrastructure no later than September 30, 2020. The briefing
shall also inform the committee of the Department of Defense's
assessment of scope and intensity of any foreign influence
operations, cyber operations, and other malicious activities
that pose a threat to the Federal elections to be held on
November 3, 2020, and any recommendations on and plans for
adjustments to authorities, legal frameworks, force posture,
capabilities, and operational concepts necessary to defend
against such operations and attacks.

Cybersecurity of commercial clouds used by Department of Defense

The committee encourages the Department of Defense's (DOD)
adoption of commercial cloud-based products and services to
store and process data. The committee understands the potential
of commercial clouds to provide cost-effective, state-of-the-
art capabilities but also understands the imperative to keep
its high-impact, mission-critical data secure from our
adversaries. To ensure the cybersecurity of commercial cloud
products and services used by the Department, it is critical
that the Department be able to conduct cybersecurity testing,
including threat-realistic cyberattacks, to assess the
cybersecurity of the Department's data and the cyber defense
response to the attacks.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing, no later than February 1, 2020, to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on how the DOD is ensuring that independent cyber assessments,
including threat-realistic attacks by independent DOD cyber red
teams, are conducted for commercially-provided infrastructure
(e.g., clouds) that involve storage of high-impact or
classified data in order to assess the security of the data and
defensive capabilities associated with the infrastructure. The
briefing shall detail DOD's efforts with respect to every
instance of a commercial cloud in which the Department is
storing, or plans to store, high-impact or classified DOD data.
The committee further recommends that information on this
testing be included in the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation annual report.

Cybersecurity of industrial control systems

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its
efforts to address the cybersecurity of installation industrial
control systems (ICSs). The committee expects to be kept
informed of the Department's ongoing efforts in this regard.
The committee is aware of a Joint Capability Technology
Demonstration (JCTD), called MOSAICS, involving Space and Naval
Warfare Systems Command, the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, a national laboratory,
and a University Affiliated Research Center. The demonstration
is based on commercial technology and standards developed by
the National Security Agency with industry and the Department
of Homeland Security under an umbrella initiative called
Integrated Adaptive Cyber Defense (IACD). IACD technologies
include sensing and automated orchestration and
interoperability among cybersecurity tools and systems to
defend both operational technology (such as ICSs) and
information technology.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to brief the congressional defense committees by February 1,
2020, on the status of these and related efforts to secure
ICSs. This briefing shall include an assessment of the MOSAICS
JCTD, the utility of additional pilot programs at one or more
installations to test measures aimed at mitigating
cybersecurity risk of installation ICSs, and plans for
acquiring and operationally fielding advanced commercial
cybersecurity solutions for ICS cybersecurity.

Declassification of near-peer adversaries' military capabilities

The committee recognizes that the United States' near-peer
competitors--China and Russia--are rapidly advancing key
military capabilities. Such capabilities include but are not
limited to: (1) Advanced submarine technology; (2) Hypersonic
missiles; (3) Fifth-generation fighter aircraft; (4) Cyber and
information operations capabilities; (5) Space and counterspace
capabilities; (6) Clandestine intelligence activities and human
source development; and (7) Those that advance destabilization
activities worldwide, including in Ukraine, Eastern Europe,
Syria, the Horn of Africa, the South China Sea, Venezuela, and
the Arctic, among other capabilities that threaten the United
States' strategic edge. Additionally, the committee recognizes
that much of the U.S. intelligence regarding these military
capabilities and threats is classified. As a consequence,
Department of Defense officials are frequently unable to
provide detailed testimony during public committee hearings
about the erosion of the comparative military advantage of the
United States, which constrains congressional oversight of
crucial national security issues and prevents the American
people from understanding the intelligence assessments that
inform national security policy.
The committee further recognizes that the Department of
Defense is required to produce ``military power'' reports with
respect to both China and Russia. Section 1260 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232) requires annual classified and declassified reports on
China's military power, titled ``Annual Report on Military and
Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of
China.'' Section 1245 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291), as amended, requires an annual Russian
military power report.
The committee stresses that it is critically important that
the Department of Defense strive for increased transparency
with the Congress and the American people on critical issues of
national security. Accordingly, the committee urges the
Department, in the course of producing the annual reports
pertaining to both China and Russia, to declassify and make
available to the public, to the maximum extent possible
consistent with United States national security, information on
the development of key military capabilities and activities of
China and Russia.

Department of Defense endpoint management program

The committee understands the importance of robust endpoint
cybersecurity, including the continuous monitoring of devices
on the network. Section 1647 of the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232) required the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report evaluating the Department of Defense's (DOD) information
security continuous monitoring programs. The committee is aware
of the DOD Chief Information Officer's (CIO) cybersecurity
priorities, including a focus on network security and
information-sharing. The committee is pleased with the
aggressive implementation of the DOD CIO's approach, including
a robust endpoint management program that includes comply-to-
connect and continuous monitoring. The committee urges the DOD
to continue the rapid deployment of commercial technology
capabilities within its endpoint management program to secure
the DOD Information Network and that allows further
standardization of capabilities across the Department.

Foreign online influence operations

Foreign influence operations on and across social media
platforms pose a significant threat to the security and
stability of the United States and its allies and partners. As
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified to the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2019, ``U.S.
adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use
online influence operations to try to weaken our democratic
institutions, undermine U.S. alliances and partnerships, and
shape policy outcomes in the United States and elsewhere.'' He
also warned that the intelligence community expects that ``the
threat landscape could look very different in 2020 and future
elections.''
The Global Engagement Center (GEC), as established by
section 1287 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), as amended by section
1284 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), is authorized to
direct, lead, synchronize, integrate, and coordinate efforts of
the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and
counter foreign state and foreign non-state propaganda and
disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the
policies, security, or stability of the United States and U.S.
allies and partner nations. In carrying out this mission, the
GEC may provide grants to nongovernmental organizations,
federally funded research and development centers, and academic
institutions, including for purposes of analyzing and reporting
on tactics, techniques, and procedures of foreign information
warfare and other efforts with respect to disinformation and
propaganda.
The committee continues to strongly support the mission of
the GEC and reiterates the importance of integrating military
and non-military tools of statecraft to address this challenge.
The committee believes that the GEC is well positioned to
counter foreign influence operations, including through the
support of efforts by U.S. nongovernmental organizations and
other appropriate entities to analyze and report on foreign
influence operations on social media platforms aimed at
undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability
of the United States.

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system enhancements

In 2017, the President sought additional funding to expand
the capacity of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system
and deploy an additional 20 ground-based interceptors (GBIs)
equipped with redesigned kill vehicles (RKVs) by 2023. In his
March 2018 prepared statement submitted to the Senate Armed
Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
Lieutenant General Samuel A. Greaves, the director of the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), explained that ``this increase to
GBI capacity is a response by the National Command Authority to
the rapidly advancing North Korean threat and has been
designated as an `emergency requirement' by the President in
the FY18 President's Budget Amendment.'' However, in his 2019
statement, Lieutenant General Greaves stated, ``I assessed the
RKV program did not meet the entrance criteria for the Critical
Design Review, resulting in a projected delay in the program of
up to 2 years.''
While the committee appreciates MDA's commitment to
rigorous testing and a ``fly before you buy'' approach, the
committee is concerned about the GMD system's ability to
continue to pace growing ballistic missile threats to the
United States without the 20 additional operational
interceptors that would be available on the anticipated
schedule. Accordingly, the committee directs the Missile
Defense Agency to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on options to improve the reliability,
performance, and overall effectiveness of the GMD system. The
briefing shall include an assessment of the cost, expected
reliability benefits, feasibility, and advisability of
upgrading configuration 1 boosters to configuration 2 and
accelerating planned upgrades of the fielded ground systems
components ahead of projected GMD Development and Sustainment
Contract dates.

Independent evaluation of Air Force space command and control
enterprise program

The committee is aware that the Air Force is developing a
Space Command and Control (Space C2) program, which is a
software-intensive effort borne out of the failure of the Joint
Space Operations Center Mission System program (JMS). The
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation concluded in his
fiscal year 2018 annual report that the JMS is not
operationally effective for its Space Situational Awareness
mission. The committee is concerned that the Air Force has now
embarked on a larger effort to develop a space enterprise
battle management communication and control platform, despite
the failure of the JMS effort and potentially without
incorporating the lessons learned.
The committee has prior experience with software-intensive
development efforts, such as the Air Force's Global Positioning
Systems Next Generation Operational Control program, which
incurred a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Such experience indicates the
need to critically examine the Space C2 program in its early
stages to ensure that it proceeds on a sound programmatic
footing.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to enter into an
agreement with a federally funded research and development
center (FFRDC) to review the Air Force's Space C2 program and
develop a final report based on such evaluation. The committee
directs the Under Secretary to submit to the congressional
defense committees, not later than February 1, 2020, the
FFRDC's final report.

Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment system and multi-
domain sensors

The committee continues to be concerned about the health of
the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITW/AA)
system, which enables precise decision-making by senior leaders
when responding to strategic threats to North America. The
committee commends the Secretary of the Air Force for a well-
thought-out series of steps to implement a plan to better
manage the program, which was submitted to the committee on
February 28, 2019.
As the program is critical to the defense of North America,
the committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with the
commanders of U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Strategic Command,
to brief the congressional defense committees on the progress
of implementing this important plan by March 1, 2020, with a
second briefing by September 1, 2020.

Light Detection and Ranging capabilities

The committee notes the importance of Light Detection and
Ranging (LIDAR) capabilities in providing high-resolution
digital mapping to support Department of Defense (DOD) planning
and operations around the world. The committee is aware of
commercial airborne mapping providers that collect and process
unclassified aerial orthoimagery and LIDAR data in support of
DOD and other federal departments and agencies of the U.S.
government in permissive and non-conflict areas around the
world and encourages the DOD to look for opportunities to
utilize commercial solutions for its requirements, when
appropriate.

Low Power Laser Demonstrator program

The committee continues to support the Missile Defense
Agency's Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) program and the
development of a boost phase intercept (BPI) capability.
Further, beyond BPI, a high altitude laser weapon system, like
those under development in the LPLD program, could have
multiple applications and capabilities and could be adapted to
be an effective countermeasure against other threats, including
cruise, surface-to-air, air-to-air, and hypersonic missiles.
The committee believes that existing lasers under
development could be scaled up further to the higher power and
beam quality levels needed to prosecute targets yet continue to
have the low size and weight requirements that are critical to
fielded systems. The Congress has recognized the need for this
technology and provided increased funding in fiscal year 2019
with the intent of continuing the development of three
technologies with the potential for scaling such lasers to the
high power levels required for BPI and defense against other
advanced threats.
In carrying out the LPLD, the committee directs the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to continue to pursue
the integration of such laser systems aboard airborne
platforms, culminating in flight demonstrations as early as
possible. Therefore, not later than December 1, 2019, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the Department of Defense's plans for the flight test
program for the LPLD project, including: (1) The expected date
that operational airborne tests of the LPLD will begin; (2) The
expected required number of flight tests and expected cadence
of flight tests that the LPLD project will require; and (3) A
comprehensive description of the Department's planned locations
to conduct LPLD flights and tests, including a cost-benefit
analysis for each location and an analysis of each location's
suitability for the flight platforms anticipated to participate
in the project.

National Security Agency Cyber Centers of Academic Excellence

The committee is aware of the National Security Agency
(NSA) National Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE) in Cyber
Defense and Cyber Operations, a joint NSA and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) program to promote higher education and
research in cyber defense and produce professionals with cyber
defense expertise. The committee is encouraged by the
university participation in this program and believes that this
program is critical to developing a cyber workforce for the
Department of Defense (DOD).
The committee notes that these academic institutions have
met designated criteria for selection and have constructed
their programs around cyber technologies and techniques that
are critical to intelligence, military, and law enforcement
organizations. The committee believes that these NSA CAEs are a
resource that should be more effectively engaged by the
Department to provide mission-critical support to the DOD,
including in cybersecurity research, cyber operational
training, cyber strategies and best practices, supply chain and
security economics, and cyber domain studies. The committee
believes that the work of, as well as the workforce emerging
from, these academic institutions should be more widely used to
meet DOD needs. The committee believes that emphasis should be
placed on institutions that have received all three NSA CAE
designations: cyber defense education, cyber defense research,
and cyber operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering and the Chief Information
Officer to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees by January 1, 2020, on the current and potential
future utilization of the NSA CAE institutions as feeder
schools, research partners, and key partners of the DOD cyber
enterprise. The briefing shall include, at a minimum, an
evaluation of additional ways that the DOD could employ the
capabilities of NSA CAE institutions and recommendations for
programs that could be established to further strengthen the
partnership between the DOD and the NSA CAEs.

Nuclear Posture Review implementation

The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) states that the B83-1
and B61-11 nuclear bombs will be retained in the stockpile, due
to their ability to hold at risk a variety of protected
targets, at least until suitable replacements are identified.
The committee understands that, as part of its implementation
of the NPR, the Department of Defense is conducting an
assessment of hard and deeply buried targets and options to
credibly hold those targets at risk consistent with deterrence
requirements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the Senate Armed Services Committee on the results of
this review not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Pilot program authority to enhance cybersecurity and resiliency of
critical infrastructure

Section 1650 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232)
established a pilot authority for the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to
provide technical cyber personnel to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to enhance cooperation, collaboration, and unity
in government efforts to protect critical infrastructure. The
committee believes that a robust partnership between the
Department of Defense (DOD) and the DHS is critical to both
organizations. The committee is pleased to learn of the use of
this authority during the defense of the 2018 midterm elections
and encourages the Departments to continue use of this
authority. The committee also encourages the Departments to
expand the use of this authority to include DOD support to DHS
for red-teaming and tabletop exercises, cybersecurity
assessments of commercial critical infrastructure relevant to
DOD installations, and other mutually beneficial activities.

Reducing barriers to service in U.S. Space Force

The committee acknowledges the absolute necessity of
recruiting the Nation's best talent in science, technology,
engineering, and math to serve in the U.S. Space Force in order
sustain a competitive advantage in the space domain. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to craft the
personnel regulations of the U.S. Space Force with the intent
to open accession into the U.S. Space Force to the widest
possible pool of talent while meeting military standards by
limiting, to the maximum extent possible, restrictions based on
physiological conditions. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees, not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, on the medical and physical standards and requirements
that will apply to members of the U.S. Space Force, the
justification associated with each requirement, and a
comparison to the current requirements that exist in the U.S.
Air Force. This briefing should also include any recommended
changes to statute that may inhibit efforts to make the
broadest recruiting pool available to the U.S. Space Force.

Report on Mobile User Objective System

The Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) is the Department
of Defense's (DOD) next-generation narrowband military
satellite communications system designed to provide increased
narrowband communications capacity and capability. The
committee is concerned that synchronizing delivery of the MUOS
space and ground segments with the Army's compatible Handheld,
Manpack, and Small Form Fit Radios remains a challenge.
Consequently, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to review: (1) The challenges to enabling
effective use of MUOS satellites and what the Department is
doing to address them; (2) Planning efforts underway to
determine a MUOS follow-on capability; and (3) What the
Department is doing to avoid disconnects in fielding satellite
and ground segments going forward. The committee directs the
Comptroller General to brief its preliminary observations to
the congressional defense committees no later than March 1,
2020, with a final report to follow on a mutually agreed upon
date.

Report on using existing intelligence sensors for ballistic missile
defense

The committee notes that ballistic missile threats are
evolving in complexity and that the U.S. Strategic Command
Commander has stated that our ability to see and characterize a
missile threat is the most important aspect of a successful
missile defense system for the U.S. homeland. The committee
recognizes that, while there are challenges associated with
developing, procuring, and deploying new sensors capable of
meeting enhanced and evolving threats, the U.S. intelligence
community has numerous ground- and sea-based sensor platforms
currently performing measurement and signature intelligence
(MASINT) collection that provide missile tracking data. The
recent Missile Defense Review describes such ``existing
intelligence-gathering sensors with a demonstrated capability
to track offensive missiles that could be incorporated into
U.S. homeland and regional missile defense architectures.'' It
is the committee's understanding that these are very capable
sensors, providing key intelligence regarding missile
development that is used by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to
design and acquire missile tracking and defense systems and
performing multiple missions including MASINT, space
surveillance, and missile defense. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense and the intelligence community to
collaborate and optimize existing U.S. MASINT sensors to
improve our ability to see and characterize missile threats to
enhance the defense of the U.S. homeland.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the MDA,
in coordination with the intelligence community, to provide a
report to the committee no later than December 1, 2019,
detailing the ability to integrate current U.S. ground- and
sea-based MASINT sensors into the U.S. homeland missile defense
architecture. The report shall include the existing
participation of U.S. intelligence sensor assets in the
ballistic missile defense system, including intelligence
support to defense system design and acquisition, as well as
the operational impacts, costs, and timelines associated with
activating a U.S. homeland missile defense mission for each
sensor.

Security and resiliency of decision-making technologies

The committee remains concerned that America's adversaries
continue to enhance their cyber capabilities with the intention
of penetrating the Department of Defense's (DOD) secure
communications infrastructure. To counter this challenge, the
committee encourages the DOD to ensure that critical decision-
making technologies remain secure and resilient in the face of
current and future cyber threats.
When developing an acquisition strategy and analysis of
alternatives for the construction of or upgrades to those
command and control centers with combat, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance responsibilities, the
committee directs DOD procurement and acquisition officers to
consider mission effectiveness and operational suitability,
including factors such as: (1) The security risk of components
and devices responsible for the routing and dissemination of
information and mitigation measures like the isolation of
network communications and integrity of firmware or software;
(2) The security risk of components and devices that are not
sourced and manufactured domestically; and (3) Physical,
logistical, or operational measures to mitigate insider
threats.

Social network analysis for counterterrorism

Extremists and terrorist organizations are using internet-
based tools like social media and digital communication as a
means to spread propaganda and to target U.S. security
interests around the world. The committee notes that
universities, colleges, and other academic institutions perform
important research on the use of these online tools by
extremists and terrorist organizations and that such research
may be beneficial to the Department of Defense's (DOD)
understanding of this rapidly evolving operating environment
and DOD's development of related strategies. As such, the
committee encourages the DOD to continue its collaboration with
these universities, colleges, and academic institutions on
these efforts, as appropriate.

Software defined networking and network and cybersecurity orchestration

The committee included a provision in the John S. McCain
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public
Law 115-232) that directed the Principal Cyber Adviser (PCA),
the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and the Commander of U.S.
Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) to designate a network on which to
conduct a demonstration and evaluation of commercial technology
to enable network nodes and security systems to communicate
with one another and to be orchestrated to ingest, publish,
subscribe, tip and cue, and request and direct information and
actions from each other.
The committee has since learned that the National Security
Agency (NSA) has conducted a multi-year effort to define and
enable Integrated Adaptive Cyber Defense (IACD) in cooperation
with commercial industry, the Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory, and the Department of Homeland Security.
The IACD effort has been working to mature the very technology
that the committee intended the Department of Defense to
demonstrate: commercial companies are offering cybersecurity
orchestration tools and services for connecting together all
cybersecurity systems, agents, applications, and appliances
deployed on a network and synchronizing their actions with a
high degree of automation and agility. These orchestration
platforms also provide capabilities to rapidly create new
workflows and event sequences.
The committee is also aware of initiatives underway within
the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to adopt and
adapt commercial and open source tools and services for
software-defined networking (SDN) for provisioning, access,
configuration, and agile control of networks, data centers, and
clouds. DISA SDN architects believe that cybersecurity
orchestration should nest under and ultimately be connected to
and be controlled by a ``global orchestration'' engine at the
enterprise network level.
The committee believes that these capabilities are critical
and should be carefully evaluated for integration into command
and control nodes like the Joint Cyber Command and Control
platform, the cybersecurity service provider operations
centers, and network operations centers. In addition, the Cyber
Protection Teams should be able to connect into the
orchestration control plane for orchestration of network
sensors and agents.
The committee directs the PCA, in coordination with the
CIO, the Joint Staff J6, and the Commander of CYBERCOM, to:
review the capabilities and offerings of the companies that the
NSA has nurtured around cybersecurity orchestration technology;
review the DISA-led SDN and network orchestration initiatives;
and develop a plan, an architecture, and requirements for
integrating these technologies and capabilities into the
Department of Defense Information Network, the cloud strategy,
and the operational cyber defense systems of the Department.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the
congressional defense committees on the status of this effort
by February 15, 2020.

Space Fence Site 2

The committee recognizes the importance of delivering
actionable battle management knowledge to warfighters as they
defend space assets as well as the criticality of providing
space situational awareness (SSA) data to enable safe space
traffic management and to avoid future collisions that could
render certain orbital regimes unusable. The importance of
space assets to both national defense and the world economy,
the development of multiple new mega-constellations, consisting
of thousands of satellites, and the growing threats to space
assets by China, Russia, and other nations demand more accurate
and timelier battle management/SSA data. The Space Fence is the
Department of Defense's newest and most capable SSA system that
can provide unparalleled capabilities, both in Low Earth Orbit
where the new mega-constellations including the Space Sensor
Layer are being built and satellites are most vulnerable, and
in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit where satellites have persistent
strategic advantages.
The committee is aware that the Department's Space Fence
contract includes an option for a second Space Fence site and
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to consider funding the
option and beginning construction of Space Fence Site 2 in
fiscal year 2021. The system has a stable design with high
technology and manufacturing readiness levels, and the cost
estimate is considerably less than Space Fence Site 1 due to
knowledge gained during construction of the first site. Space
Fence Site 2 would increase resiliency of the Space
Surveillance Network, improve accuracy, timeliness, and custody
of low altitude objects, increase southern hemisphere coverage,
and significantly enhance deep space coverage. The committee
directs the Secretary to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than February 28, 2020, on the
decision as to whether to fund a second Space Fence site and
the reasons for such a decision.

Space industrial base of the People's Republic of China

The committee recognizes the critical importance of the
emerging small satellite and small launch vehicle sectors to
the future economic competitiveness and national security of
the United States. However, the committee is concerned about
the rapid growth of the Chinese commercial space sector that is
supported by the Chinese government through technology
assistance, state-backed venture investments (including
investments in U.S. companies that ultimately lead to
intellectual property leakage to the People's Republic of
China), state-backed industrial espionage, and major national
initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative.
The committee understands that in the last 4 years more
than 60 small commercial space companies have emerged in China.
These companies are focused on leveraging the technology
advancements of low-cost small satellites and launch vehicles
to lead and dominate global markets. As a result, these
companies have been able to enter the international marketplace
with costs that are 3 to 4 times less than comparable U.S.
companies.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide, not later than March 15, 2020, a briefing on the
current state of the small satellite and small launch industry
in China, to include an assessment of the role of Chinese
government support in the growth of these companies and a set
of recommended steps and investments the Secretary should take
to ensure that the Department of Defense has long-term access
to world-leading small satellite and small launch technologies
and capabilities from U.S. companies.

Status of Military Ground User Equipment receivers

The committee is concerned with the compatibility of
Military Ground User Equipment (MGUE) with the Global
Positioning System III enhanced Military Code (M-Code),
including obsolescence issues in existing receivers and issues
associated with a trusted microelectronics base.
Therefore, the committee directs the co-chairs of the
Council on Oversight of the Department of Defense Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing Enterprise to submit a report, no later
than February 1, 2020, to the congressional defense committees,
on the number and extent of the military systems that will
require the MGUE receiver replacement compatible with the GPS
III enhanced M-Code, the cost of replacement for these systems,
and the timing of the replacement of these receivers with MGUE
cards.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the report and provide an inventory and
assessment of fielded systems that can either accept the new
MGUE cards, allow reprogramming of the systems with new
software to utilize GPS III M-Code, or require a full
replacement with updated hardware. The evaluation must include
a timeline of the expected usable lifespan of each system and a
verdict as to whether the replacement has been assigned,
programmed, and loaded in the procurement cycle for the
affected equipment. The committee directs the Comptroller
General to relay these findings in the form of a briefing to
the congressional defense committees at a time mutually agreed
upon by both parties.

Tactically responsive space launch operations

The committee recognizes the importance of integrating and
synchronizing new commercial small launch services into the
National Security Space Enterprise. The committee also supports
the testing, training, and operationalization of these
capabilities to provide options for on-orbit reconstitution
within the space warfighting domain.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to
develop a plan to leverage and analyze commercial space launch
capabilities and to integrate these capabilities into
Department of Defense (DOD) space operations. The Secretary
shall provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees, not later than March 1, 2020, on such plan. The
briefing shall address:
(1) The establishment of responsive launch operational
tactics, techniques, and procedures to improve the Air Force's
capability to rapidly reconstitute and improve resilience for
defense satellite system launches;
(2) The operational benefits that this effort will provide
to the military departments and combatant commanders, to
include the strategic benefit of performing tactically
responsive space launch demonstrations at military
installations in strategic geographic locations such as the
Indo-Pacific region;
(3) The amount of funding and other resources required by
the DOD to employ a contingency capability for rapid
reconstitution and tactically responsive space launch; and
(4) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense transition and requirements

The committee recognizes that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) develops, tests, and fields systems to defend the United
States and its forces, allies, and partners against enemy
missiles. While the track record of previous transitions of
such systems to the Services is poor, the committee believes
that transitioning acquisition and sustainment from the MDA to
the military departments is essential for successful
operations, effective alignment of assets with requirements,
and financial transparency.
Section 1676 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 114-91), as amended, required the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the plan to
transition any MDA missile defense system that has reached
Milestone C approval or equivalent to the military departments.
The committee notes that the Terminal High Altitude Area
Defense (THAAD) program began the production and fielding phase
in 2012 and, as such, is long overdue for transition to the
Department of the Army. Per the requirements of section 1676,
the Secretary's plan for transitioning eligible systems was due
to the congressional defense committees no later than December
12, 2018, but that report has not yet been submitted.
The committee believes that the Army should be responsible
for procuring and sustaining THAAD batteries and, as such,
elsewhere in this Act all THAAD procurement and operation and
maintenance funding is found in the budget of the Department of
the Army. Research, development, test, and evaluation funds
remain within the MDA's budget in order to facilitate the MDA's
ongoing work on further system improvements and on the
integration of THAAD into the rest of the missile defense
architecture.
Further, the committee notes that the existing validated
THAAD requirement is nine batteries but only seven have been
procured by the MDA and manned by the Army. The committee
understands that this requirement may change due to a study
tasked by the 2019 Missile Defense Review. Because THAAD
batteries are already some of the highest-demand, lowest-
density assets in the Army and because the committee believes
that these units are crucial for the defense of U.S. and allied
forces, the committee believes that procurement should be
promptly aligned to the requirement.
The committee understands that it may be possible to
synchronize U.S. procurement with foreign military sales in
order to achieve economies of scale in production. The
committee therefore expects that the Army will request
procurement funds for an eighth battery in fiscal year 2021 and
a ninth in fiscal year 2022. The committee also expects the
Army to make the necessary investments in order to facilitate
interceptor production at the level needed to meet
requirements. Finally, the committee expects the Army to devote
sufficient end strength in its future planning to fully meet
the battery requirement.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Summary and explanation of funding tables
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the Defense Agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure
accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions made in prior base closure rounds. It prohibits any
future base realignment closure rounds.
The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in division B of this Act and summarize that funding by
account.
The fiscal year 2020 budget requested $11.2 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$9.7 billion was requested for military construction, $1.3
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
$278.5 million for base closure activities, and $144.0 million
for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program.
The committee recommends the authorization of
appropriations for military construction, housing programs, and
base closure activities totaling $11.2 billion. The total
amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee's
continued commitment to investing in the recapitalization of
DOD facilities and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2024,
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2025, whichever is later.
Effective date (sec. 2003)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide an
effective date for titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of
October 1, 2019, or the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever is later.

TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.4 billion for military construction and $499.3 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2020.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.5 billion for military construction for the Army and $353.3
million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2020.
The committee notes that the reduction in authorization for
family housing is intended to accurately reflect a transfer of
funds to the other military departments for the funding of
personnel at installation housing management offices.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2101 and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the active component of the
Army for fiscal year 2020. The committee recognizes the
significant unfunded military construction requirements and has
included an additional $88.5 million for many of these
projects. The authorized amount is listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2020. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2020. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019 project
(sec. 2104)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B
of Public Law 115-232) for the construction of a weapon
maintenance shop at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, to include a
21,000 square foot weapon maintenance shop.

TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.8 billion for military construction and $365.5 million
for family housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal
year 2020.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.9 billion for military construction for the Navy and $446.5
million for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2020.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2201 and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2020. The committee recognizes the significant unfunded
military construction requirements and has included an
additional $607.1 million for many of these projects. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2020. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing
units of the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed
$41.8 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy
authorized for construction for fiscal year 2020. This
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount
authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the active components of the Navy and the Marine
Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding
list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.2 billion for military construction and $398.6 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2020.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.3 billion for military construction for the Air Force and
$463.6 million for family housing for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2020.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in
section 2301 and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2020.
The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military
construction requirements and has included an additional $391.5
million for many of these projects. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Air Force for fiscal year 2020. This provision would
also authorize funds for facilities that support family
housing, including housing management offices, housing
maintenance, and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family
housing units of the Department of the Air Force in an amount
not to exceed $53.6 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2020. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project
(sec. 2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3679) for Royal Air Force
Croughton, for Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex
Consolidation Phase 1, to change the location to Royal Air
Force Molesworth, United Kingdom.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project
(sec. 2306)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (division B
of Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 1153) for Joint Intelligence
Analysis Complex Consolidation Phase 2 at an unspecified
location in the United Kingdom, as modified by section 2305 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (division B of Public Law 115-232), to include for
construction at Royal Air Force Molesworth, United Kingdom, a
5,152 square meter intelligence analytic center, a 5,234 square
meter intelligence fusion center, and an 807 square meter
battlefield information collection and exploitation system
center.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 project
(sec. 2307)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(b) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B
of Public Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2697) for Joint Intelligence
Analysis Complex Consolidation Phase 3 at an unspecified
location in the United Kingdom, as modified by section 2305 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (division B of Public Law 115-32), to include for
construction at Royal Air Force Molesworth, United Kingdom, a
1,562 square meter regional joint intelligence training
facility and a 4,495 square meter combatant command
intelligence facility.

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2018 projects
(sec. 2308)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority contained in section 2301(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B
of Public Law 115-91; 131 Stat. 1826) for the construction of a
dining and classroom facility at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas,
to include a 750 square meter equipment building, and for the
construction of an air traffic control tower, to include a 636
square meter air traffic control tower.
Additionally this provision would modify the authorization
contained in section 2903 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (division B of Public
Law 115-91; 131 Stat. 1876) for repairing and expanding a quick
reaction alert pad at Rygge, Norway, to include the
construction of 1,327 square meters of aircraft shelter and a
404 square meter fire protection building.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2019
projects (sec. 2309)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B
of Public Law 115-232) for the construction of a semiconductor
or microelectronics lab facility at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Massachusetts, to include a 1,000 kilowatt stand-by generator.
This provision would also modify the authorization
contained in section 2301(b) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (division B of Public
Law 115-232) for the construction of an F-35 dormitory at Royal
Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom, to include a 5,900 square
meter dormitory.

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.5 billion for military construction for the Defense
Agencies for fiscal year 2020.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.5 billion for military construction for the Defense Agencies
for fiscal year 2020.
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Defense Agencies for
fiscal year 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program
projects (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation
projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the Defense Agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2020. This provision would also provide an
overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the Defense
Agencies. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.

TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $686.2 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2020 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Security Investment Program and in-kind contributions
from the Republic of Korea. The committee recommends
authorization of appropriations for the requested amount.

Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $144.0 million for the U.S. contribution to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security
Investment Program (NSIP) for fiscal year 2020.
This provision would also allow the Department of Defense
construction agent to recognize the NATO project authorization
amounts as budgetary resources to incur obligations when the
United States is designated as the host nation for the purposes
of executing a project under NSIP.

Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to accept four military construction
projects totaling $542.2 million from the Republic of Korea as
in-kind contributions.

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $552.4 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2020 for facilities for the National Guard and
reserve components.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$483.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2020
for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components.
The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state
list table included in this report.
Further details on projects authorized can be found in the
tables in this title and section 4601 of this Act.
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2020. The committee recognizes the significant
unfunded military construction requirements and has included an
additional $50.0 million for many of these projects. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2020. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2020. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2020 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.

TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $278.5 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
1995, and 2005 base realignment and closure rounds. The
committee recommends $278.5 million for these efforts. The
detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state
list table included in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, 1995, and 2005 base realignment and closure rounds.
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure
(BRAC) round (sec. 2702)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense from conducting another base
realignment and closure (BRAC) round.
The committee notes that, although the Department of
Defense did not request authorization to conduct a BRAC round
in the request for fiscal year 2020, the Department continues
to focus its efforts on studying facility optimization. The
committee is encouraged by these efforts and looks forward to
reviewing these results prior to the request for any future
BRAC round.

TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Military Construction Program

Military installation resilience plans and projects of Department of
Defense (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter I of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to
require the Secretaries of the military departments to develop
and implement military installation resilience plans for
installations in coastal areas.

Prohibition on use of funds to reduce air base resiliency or demolish
protected aircraft shelters in the European theater without
creating a similar protection from attack (sec. 2802)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for the Department of Defense to be obligated or
expended to implement any activity that reduces air base
resiliency or demolishes protected aircraft shelters in the
European theater without creating similar protection from
attack until such time as the Secretary of Defense certifies
that protected aircraft shelters are not required in the
European theater.

Prohibition on use of funds to close or return to the host nation any
existing air base (sec. 2803)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for the Department of Defense to be obligated or
expended to implement any activity that closes or returns to
host nations any existing airbases until such time as the
Secretary of Defense certifies that there is no longer a need
for a rotational military presence in the European theater.

Increased authority for certain unspecified minor military construction
projects (sec. 2804)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
secretary of the military department concerned to carry out
unspecified minor military construction projects, not to exceed
$12.0 million with an area cost factor of $19.0 million, at the
following installations: (1) Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida;
(2) Camp Ashland, Nebraska; (3) Offutt Air Force Base,
Nebraska; (4) Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; and (5) Marine
Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North Carolina.
The committee notes that the provision includes a
termination clause of 5 years after enactment of this Act.

Technical corrections and improvements to installation resilience (sec.
2805)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 210 of title 23, United States Code, to improve the
construction and reconstruction of defense access roads subject
to weather conditions. Additionally, this provision would
update the United Facilities Criteria to ensure that the
Department of Defense accounts for weather and population
projections during the construction projects.

Subtitle B--Land Conveyances

Release of interests retained in Camp Joseph T. Robinson, Arkansas, for
use of such land as a veterans cemetery (sec. 2811)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Army to release the terms and conditions and
reversionary interests retained on approximately 141.5 acres
previously owned by the United States government. The committee
notes that the provision would require that the transferred
land be used for the sole purpose of expanding the Arkansas
State Veterans Cemetery.

Transfer of administrative jurisdiction over certain parcels of Federal
land in Arlington, Virginia (sec. 2812)

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the
Department of Defense, that would require the Secretary of the
Interior to transfer a specified 16.09 acres parcel to the
Secretary of the Army and for the Secretary of the Army to
transfer a specified 1.04 acre parcel to the Secretary of the
Interior. The provision would not require any form of payment
or consideration from either party. The provision would require
that the 16.09 acre parcel transferred to the Army be managed
as part of Arlington National Cemetery (ANC).
The committee notes that this provision would simplify
Federal land jurisdictions, enabling more effective safety,
force protection, and vehicular and pedestrian flow into and
out of ANC by moving control of the primary entrance to ANC--
known as Memorial Avenue--from the Department of the Interior
to the Army.

Modification of requirements relating to land acquisition in Arlington
County, Virginia (sec. 2813)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2829A of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to require the Secretary
of the Army to expend amounts up to fair market value for
cemetery expansion and include an in-kind consideration clause.

White Sands Missile Range Land Enhancements (sec. 2814)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish
White Sands National Park and abolish White Sands National
Monument. The establishment of a national park would increase
the public recognition of the significant resources of White
Sands. This provision would modify the boundary of White Sands
National Park and convey 3,737 acres of land from the Secretary
of the Interior to the Secretary of the Army. This provision
would also convey 8,592 acres of land from the Secretary of the
Army to the Secretary of the Interior.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Equal treatment of insured depository institutions and credit unions
operating on military installations (sec. 2821)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that policies governing
depository institutions and credit unions operating on military
installations are equally applied to all relevant institutions.
Additionally, the provision would prohibit any requirement for
Secretaries of the military departments to provide no-cost
office space or no-cost land lease to any insured depository
institution or insured credit union.
As servicemember financial practices evolve to reflect the
growing prevalence of online banking, it makes little sense for
the DOD to mandate that the Services provide a subsidy in the
form of free rent, utilities, or other logistical support to
any particular financial institution. Rather, the Department
should ensure that any decision to provide rent concessions to
on-base private businesses is justified on the basis of a
coherent cost-benefit analysis.
The committee also believes that no particular group of
financial institutions should be advantaged or disadvantaged by
DOD policy on the basis of its business structure and tax
status. Therefore, this provision would require the DOD to
develop policy treating all financial institutions equally when
determining whether to provide a subsidy in exchange for an on-
base location.

Expansion of temporary authority for acceptance and use of
contributions for certain construction, maintenance, and repair
projects mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and
Kuwait military forces (sec. 2822)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2804 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016, Division B of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), to
include the Government of the Republic of Korea.

Designation of Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base (sec. 2823)

The committee recommends a provision that would designate
the Sumpter Smith Air National Guard Base in Birmingham,
Alabama, as the ``Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base.''

Prohibition on use of funds to privatize temporary lodging on
installations of Department of Defense (sec. 2824)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the authorization of funds to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2020 to privatize temporary lodging on military
installations.

Pilot program to extend service life of roads and runways under the
jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the military departments
(sec. 2825)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretaries of the military departments to carry out a
pilot program to design, build, and test technologies in order
to extend the service life of roads and runways under their
jurisdiction. Further, this provision would require that, not
later than 2 years after the commencement of the pilot program,
the Secretaries of the military departments submit a report on
the program to the congressional defense committees.

Items of Special Interest

Briefing on laboratory military construction

The committee understands the importance of cutting-edge
infrastructure for the Department of Defense (DOD) research and
development facilities. The committee notes that section 2806
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
(Public Law 115-91) directed the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, in coordination with the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, to submit a report
listing unfunded requirements on major and minor military
construction projects for the DOD science and technology
laboratories and test and evaluation facilities. The committee
also authorized the laboratories to use research and
development funds for large laboratory facility construction
projects in section 2803 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The committee
remains concerned that laboratory infrastructure continues to
be underfunded and fails to match investments being made in
similar facilities by near peer adversaries.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering, in coordination with the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the
unfunded requirements for laboratory military construction
projects by February 1, 2020. The briefing should include: (1)
The impacts of the unfunded laboratory military construction
projects on the research activities of the laboratories; (2) An
analysis of laboratory-unique military construction costs in
comparison to traditional military construction costs; and (3)
Recommendations for addressing the impacts of these unfunded
requirements.

Comptroller General review of privatized lodging program

The committee notes the importance of ensuring that the
Department of Defense's financial resources are being
efficiently spent on all facets of housing and lodging. The
committee notes that, in 2009, the Army began the Privatized
Army Lodging (PAL) program to save on revitalization costs,
shorten lengthy lead times, and provide rooms at potentially 75
percent of lodging per diem, which was estimated to save over
$80.0 million annually. However, the committee notes that,
according to recent reports, including one by the Government
Accountability Office, there are concerns that PAL facilities
may have higher lodging costs. The committee believes the
Services should always be looking to provide better services at
a reduced cost, while also reducing their non-core functions,
but that the provision of better service should not be
undertaken without proper analysis.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to provide a briefing on preliminary
findings to the congressional defense committees no later than
February 15, 2020, with a report to follow, on the following:
(1) How have the costs of staying in Army lodging been affected
by privatization, and how do these costs compare with those at
non-privatized Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force lodging?; (2)
What costs or savings has the Army realized since privatizing
its lodging, and how do the costs compare with the costs to the
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force for operating lodging, to
include per diem expenses?; (3) What improvements have been
made to the Army's lodging facilities since privatization; (4)
Have the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force assessed privatizing
their lodging and what have the relevant cost benefit analyses,
if any, shown?; (5) What lessons learned from the Army's PAL
program have been shared with the other services?; and (6) Any
other matters the Comptroller General determines relevant.

Defense Access Roads

The committee is supportive of Defense Access Roads (DAR)
as a vital mechanism in providing transportation infrastructure
to domestic installations and is supportive of additional
funding from the Department of Defense (DOD) for mission-
critical, off-base transportation improvements. The committee
notes, for the first time in fiscal year 2019, the expansion of
DAR, available to pay the cost of repairing and mitigating
damage to infrastructure and highways by recurrent flooding if
the Secretary determines that continued access to military
installations is impacted by both storm and non-storm surge
flooding.
With this in mind, the February 2019 ``Report to Congress
on Defense Access Roads'' stated that, of the 10 projects the
DOD manages, there ``are not any flood-prone locations creating
a national security risk to transportation access for military
installations.'' Additionally, the report stated that the DOD
``has the necessary means to address any flooding issues or
risks (storm or non-storm surge) that may impact DOD missions
if the roads meet the criteria to be certified as DAR but at
this point no specific problems are known to exist.'' As DAR
certification only extends to public roads that meet certain
criteria and State and local highway authorities are
responsible for the connecting roads and highways, the
committee encourages the Department to work with both local
communities and State governments to determine if any existing
public roads are hampering military readiness.

Department of Defense disaster recovery

The committee is concerned about the impact of recent
natural disasters on several of the Nation's key military
installations. Flooding damage at Offutt Air Force Base and the
Nebraska National Guard's Camp Ashland has put at risk
essential missions, training, and tasking for highly valuable
elements of Air Force's intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance enterprise as well as highly critical components
of the Army National Guard's training regimen. Hurricane
impacts to Tyndall Air Force Base, Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point have
threatened air dominance and amphibious assault training,
affecting operational readiness at a time when the Services can
little afford to lose this capability. Significant portions of
Offutt Air Force Base, Camp Ashland, Camp Lejeune, and Marine
Corps Air Station Cherry Point were impacted, while 95 percent
of the buildings at Tyndall Air Force Base were damaged or
destroyed.
The devastation at these facilities presents a serious
challenge to the Department of Defense's installation
management enterprise, and the committee believes that
rebuilding these locations must be a priority for the
Department and for the Congress.
The committee is committed to ensuring that the United
States Strategic Command, the 55th Wing, and the Nebraska
National Guard receive the necessary funding to return Offutt
Air Force Base and Camp Ashland to full mission capability.
Further, the committee remains unified in its belief that
Tyndall Air Force Base, Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point are vital to the Department's efforts to
protect the Nation and realize the goals of the National
Defense Strategy. Taken as a whole, the facilities, assets, and
personnel at these bases are an essential element of the
Department of Defense's ability to provide mission essential
forces in support of national security objectives and remain
critical to supporting the operational needs of combatant
commanders.
As such, the committee believes that full restoration of
Offutt Air Force Base, Camp Ashland, Tyndall Air Force Base,
Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point are in
the vital national security interest of the United States and
supports efforts by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Army
National Guard to limit operational impact and restore those
installations to meet and exceed their prior operational
capacity.

Excess storage capacity at Army National Guard installations

The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD)
facilities are able to maintain unique secure storage
capabilities as well as have excess storage capacity that could
also be used for public-private partnership opportunities. For
example, the committee understands that Camp Navajo, Arizona,
has significant excess capacity that could enable public-
private partnerships to offer additional revenue to Camp
Navajo, the Arizona National Guard, and the surrounding
community. The committee recognizes the value that public-
private partnerships between the DOD and appropriate non-profit
or commercial entities would bring to the installation and
encourages the Army to consider expanding these partnerships.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense
committees, no later than November 1, 2019, outlining specific
National Guard installations that have requested to use excess
storage capacity for public-private partnerships. The briefing
should include general considerations that could impact any
public-private storage agreements with non-DOD entities.
Additionally, the briefing should include any land conveyances
that may be required for any installations on a case-by-case
basis.

Firearms training infrastructure

The committee remains concerned that a lack of emphasis on
firearms training infrastructure in planning of military
construction initiatives is placing an undue burden on military
units and that the resulting time and resource inefficiency is
detrimental to mission readiness. The committee urges the
Department of Defense (DOD) to consider the total time and
resource expenditures incurred and impact to mission readiness
caused by inadequate training infrastructure when prioritizing
military construction projects. Where appropriate, the
committee encourages the DOD to seek out additional
opportunities to partner with state and local entities.

Long-term modernization of Lincoln Laboratory

The committee recognizes the critical role that Lincoln
Laboratory plays in conducting research and developing
technologies that address critical national security
challenges. In an effort to address the aging infrastructure
that supports Lincoln Laboratory, the Air Force has two
military construction projects to support the Lincoln
Laboratory West Laboratory. The first military construction
project was authorized by the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) and
the second project is currently programmed for fiscal year
2022. In addition, the committee is aware of a long-term
modernization plan under development for Lincoln Laboratory
that could amount to more than $1.5 billion in infrastructure
investments over a 30-year period.
However, the committee is aware that the military
construction program may not be able to support such a large
investment due to competing Air Force infrastructure
priorities. The committee is also aware that many other federal
agencies, inside and outside the Department of Defense, make
use of the Air Force contract with Lincoln Laboratory. In
addition, other statutory authorities, such as section 2353 of
title 10, United States Code, may not currently allow for
infrastructure investments due to circumstances specific to
Lincoln Laboratory.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, not later than November 1, 2019, to provide a briefing
to the committee on funding and authorities under consideration
to support the long-term modernization plan for Lincoln
Laboratory. The briefing should include a discussion on
legislative proposals under consideration that could provide a
viable path to support the long-term modernization plan,
including the benefits of and equities related to all Lincoln
Laboratory contract users paying a fair share of facility
sustainment, recapitalization, and construction costs.

Report on Base Realignment Closure costs

The committee notes that the Department of Defense's budget
request for fiscal year 2020 included $278.5 million for the
ongoing cost of environmental remediation and other activities
related to implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and
2005 Base Realignment Closure (BRAC) rounds. The committee is
concerned that, while BRAC is requested and presented by the
Department as a consolidation that creates efficiency and
savings, the Department is still facing annual BRAC costs for
the 5 previous closure rounds, dating back almost 30 years. The
committee is interested in understanding the fully burdened
costs, to include the annual continuing costs associated with
each BRAC round, the actual savings realized, and how the
initial cost estimates align with actual costs incurred.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to deliver a report to the congressional defense committees, no
later than November 1, 2019, on the estimates for both savings
and costs as compared with the actual costs incurred and
savings realized for each BRAC round since 1988. The report
should include but not be limited to: (1) A timeline for each
BRAC round, from approval through final spending for each
round; (2) The estimated costs, in current-year dollars,
reported to the Congress when each specific BRAC round was
requested and approved; (3) The actual total costs, to date,
for each BRAC round, separating out military construction and
environmental remediation costs; (4) The actual savings, to
date, realized for each BRAC round; (5) The current estimated
final costs for each BRAC round, including environmental
remediation costs, and identifying differences, if any, from
the original estimate at time of approval; (6) The annual
remaining recurring costs associated with each BRAC round,
including, but not limited to, environmental remediation costs,
broken down by location; (7) An estimate of when the Department
will have fully completed the environmental remediation for
each BRAC round and no longer requires continued funding; and
(8) An assessment, with recommendations as warranted, of
whether savings could be realized by paying down continuing
BRAC costs at a faster pace than currently planned.
Additionally, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct a review of the Department's
study to assess the report's methodologies and findings. The
Comptroller General of the United States shall also review the
Department's previous reports on BRAC costs and estimated cost
savings versus realized cost savings and assess the validity of
the Department's cost estimating process for BRAC-associated
activities.

Report on condition of facilities at Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps units at minority-serving institutions

The committee recognizes the importance of Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs to developing our
military's future leaders. Given the challenge that many
colleges face in providing and maintaining facilities for ROTC
programs in the current environment of state budget cuts to
higher education, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the current condition of facilities used by units of
the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps at minority-serving
institutions. The report shall include the following: (1) A
comprehensive description of the current condition of
facilities used by such units; and (2) An assessment as to
whether the condition of such facilities has an adverse impact
on the recruitment and retention of participants in such units.
The term ``minority-serving institution'' means a minority-
serving institution for purposes of section 371 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-329; 20 U.S.C. 1067q).

TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
The budget request included $303.4 million for military
construction in fiscal year 2020 for overseas contingency
operations.
The committee recommends $2.9 billion for military
construction in fiscal year 2020 for overseas contingency
operations. The committee notes this includes $2.6 billion in
disaster recovery funding.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2901)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Army military construction projects for fiscal year 2020 for
overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2902)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy military construction projects for fiscal year 2020 for
overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2903)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2020
for overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2904)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Defense Agencies military construction projects for fiscal year
2020 for overseas contingency operations. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Disaster recovery projects (sec. 2905)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
specific amounts of disaster recovery funding for specific
Marine Corps, Air Force, Army National Guard, and Defense-wide
construction projects. The provision would direct specific
amounts for Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry
Point, and MTA Fort Fisher in North Carolina as well as Tyndall
Air Force Base and Panama City National Guard in Florida.
The committee notes that additional funds for planning and
design are allocated for disaster relief in Florida, Nebraska,
and North Carolina.
Replenishment of certain military construction funds (sec. 2906)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$3.6 billion in military construction, overseas contingency
operations, for the purposes of replenishing funds for
previously authorized military construction projects that were
repurposed under section 2808 of title 10, United States Code,
from the national emergency declared on the southern border
under the National Emergencies Act (Public Law 94-412). Under
this provision: these transfers are exempt from General
Transfer Authority; the transfer amounts may not exceed what
was originally expended under section 2808 authority for each
project; the aggregate amount after the transfer for any given
project cannot exceed the original authorization for
appropriation amount; and funds can only be transferred until
September 31, 2020.
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2907)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military construction in the overseas
contingency operations account for fiscal year 2020.

TITLE XXX--MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION REFORM

Definitions (sec. 3001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
definitions for specific terms for this title.

Subtitle A--Accountability and Oversight

Tenant bill of rights for privatized military housing (sec. 3011)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretaries of the military departments, to develop a document
to be known as the ``Tenant Bill of Rights,'' which would
include but not be limited to minimum rights, such as homes
that meet minimum health and environmental standards, the
ability to report inadequate living standards to the military
chain of command without fear of reprisal, and the ability to
enter into a dispute resolution process for purposes of
recouping basic allowance for housing. The provision would also
require the Secretary of Defense to submit the current Tenant
Bill of Rights on a biennial basis in conjunction with the
annual budget submission. Finally, the provision would require
the secretary of each military department to deliver an
implementation plan for this provision to the congressional
defense committees not later than February 1, 2020.
The committee believes that this ``Tenant Bill of Rights''
should act as a framework for both the rights and
responsibilities of any tenant living in housing managed by a
Military Housing Privatization Initiative contractor. While
certain rights included may require difficult contract
renegotiation, the committee notes the willingness of many of
the private contractors to ensure that tenants are better taken
care of. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
work with military family advocacy groups in developing this
document to ensure that it captures the overarching concerns of
thousands of military families who have lived in substandard
living conditions for years. Finally, the committee notes that
this document may not be all-inclusive and that it is the
responsibility of the military chain of command to ensure the
health, safety, and welfare of its servicemembers.
Designation of Chief Housing Officer for privatized military housing
(sec. 3012)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
requiring the Secretary of Defense to designate a Chief Housing
Officer, who shall be a presidentially appointed and Senate-
confirmed Department of Defense official. The provision would
require the Chief Housing Officer to establish and maintain the
Office of the Chief Housing Officer, whose purpose would be to
conduct oversight of the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI) by standardizing policies and conducting
audits of contracts, agreements, and work order incentive fees.
The committee notes that this provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit an implementation report to the
congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after
enactment of this Act.
The committee is concerned that the confirmed MHPI crisis
has created immediate needs for military families but also
requires long-term and consistent oversight for the viability
of the program. The committee believes that the military
departments must work together to address family concerns but
that, moving forward, there must be a Department-wide effort to
find the best solutions in order to improve the quality of life
for military families who utilize on-base housing. The
committee notes that, as the Department focuses on improving
servicemember lethality, military family readiness must remain
a priority so that servicemembers can remain mission-focused.
Command oversight of military privatized housing as element of
performance evaluations (sec. 3013)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
each secretary of a military department to ensure that
performance evaluations indicate the extent to which the
following individuals have or have not exercised effective
oversight and leadership of military privatized housing: (1)
Commanders of military installations with privatized military
housing; (2) Each officer or senior enlisted member whose
duties include facilities or housing management at such
installations; and (3) Any other officer or enlisted member as
specified by the secretary concerned.
Consideration of history of landlord in contract renewal process for
privatized military housing (sec. 3014)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring the Secretary of Defense to consider a private
contractor's past performance when deciding whether or not to
enter into a new contract or renew an existing contract with
that contractor.
Treatment of breach of contract for privatized military housing (sec.
3015)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring the Secretary of Defense to withhold any amount
owed under the contract as well as to rescind the contract if a
material breach is found and not remedied within 90 days.
Uniform code of basic standards for privatized military housing and
plan to conduct inspections and assessments (sec. 3016)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform code of basic
housing standards for safety, comfort, and habitability for
privatized military housing. The provision would also require
the Secretary to submit to the congressional defense
committees, not later than February 1, 2020, this uniform code
and a plan for the Department of Defense (DOD) to contract with
home inspectors to conduct inspections and assessments of
habitability and structural integrity of each housing unit as
specified under subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code. Finally, the provision would require that
said inspections be completed no later than February 1, 2021.
The committee notes that, at the end of the 50-year
agreements, housing units currently managed by military housing
privatization contractors will be returned to the DOD. The
committee believes that the totality of the condition of
housing under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative
(MHPI) is unknown. The committee notes that, during its
investigation of the MHPI program, both individual homes and
entire neighborhoods were neglected as it relates to required
preventative and curative maintenance. The committee is
concerned that, if measures are not taken to ensure the long-
term viability of the current inventory, the DOD may receive
its housing inventory back in less than ideal conditions,
leading to higher maintenance costs in the future.
Repeal of supplemental payments to lessors and requirement for use of
funds in connection with the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (sec. 3017)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 606 of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232), by
repealing the requirement that the Secretary of Defense pay an
additional 5 percent of the calculated Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) for residents of Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI) projects to MHPI projects. The provision
would require the Secretaries of the military departments to
provide additional payments to MHPI projects equivalent to 2
percent of the calculated BAH for residents of MHPI projects.
The Secretaries of the military departments would be required
to use 3 percent of the calculated BAH for MHPI residents to
make improvements to the oversight and management of MHPI
projects.
Under this provision, funding allocated to MHPI oversight
could be used for additional civilian personnel, technological
systems, or other items that would improve the military's
ability to manage and effectively supervise the various MHPI
developments. The provision would allow the Secretaries of the
military departments to provide additional funding the MHPI
projects following notification to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Standard for common credentials for health and environmental inspectors
of privatized military housing (sec. 3018)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on a standard for common credentials to be
used throughout the Department of Defense for purposes of
health and environmental hazard inspection to include, at a
minimum, categories for lead, mold, and radon.
Improvement of privatized military housing (sec. 3019)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a database that makes
available to the public complaints from tenants related to
privatized military housing units, together with the landlord's
response to each such complaint.
The provision also would require that, on no less than an
annual basis, the Secretary of Defense publish in the Federal
Register the financial details of each contract for the
management of military privatized housing units.
Further, the provision would require each relevant landlord
to submit to the Secretary of Defense, on no less than an
annual basis, a financial statement equivalent to the Form 10-K
for the landlord and for each contract between the landlord and
the DOD.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, and
to publish on a publicly available website of the DOD, not less
than annually, a report on privatized military housing units,
disaggregated by military installation. In addition, the
commander of each military installation would be required to
submit to the congressional defense committees, not less than
annually, a report on all requests made by members of the Armed
Forces, who are tenants of privatized military housing units,
to withhold from their landlords any basic allowance for
housing payable to the member that were denied during the
period covered by the report.
Access to maintenance work order system of landlords of privatized
military housing (sec. 3020)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring each private contractor that provides housing
under this subchapter to provide the housing management office
at each installation access to their maintenance work order
system.
The committee notes that, during its investigation of the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), it found that
different services and installations had different levels of
access to the maintenance work order system maintained by
private contractors. The committee believes that, to conduct
adequate oversight of the MHPI program, the housing management
office, and thereby the military chain of command, must have an
accurate assessment of outstanding work orders for its
installation.
Access by tenants of privatized military housing to work order system
of landlord (sec. 3021)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that each landlord for a privatized military housing unit have
an electronic work order system and provide tenants with access
to such system.

Subtitle B--Prioritizing Families

Dispute resolution process for landlord-tenant disputes regarding
privatized military housing and requests to withhold payments
(sec. 3031)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
to require the Secretary of Defense to implement a formal
dispute resolution process on each military installation with
privatized military housing units. This process would ensure
prompt and fair resolution of landlord-tenant disputes
concerning maintenance and repairs, damage claims, rental
payments, move-out charges, and any other housing unit issues
that the Secretary deems appropriate. This provision would
require landlords to establish a process whereby tenants could
submit a dispute electronically or in another form.
Additionally, the provision would establish the commander of a
military installation with privatized military housing as the
designee who makes the final decision on any appeal with a
requirement that he or she seek recommendations, at a minimum,
from the: (1) Servicemember or family member filing the
dispute; (2) Landlord named in the dispute; (3) Chief of the
installation housing management office; (4) Judge advocate of
the military department concerned; and (5) Base civil engineer.
The provision would require decisions to be rendered at least
on a monthly basis and decisions of the installation commander
would be final.
Moreover, this provision would authorize a member of the
Armed Forces or a family member who is a tenant of a privatized
military housing unit to submit a claim, to the commander,
requesting the withholding of any basic allowance for housing
payable to the member for the lease of a unit during a period
in which: (1) The landlord has not met maintenance guidelines
and procedures established by the landlord or the Department of
Defense; or (2) The housing unit is uninhabitable according to
State and local law for the jurisdiction in which the unit is
located.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to develop and brief the congressional defense
committees no later than February 1, 2020, on a department-wide
policy for any funds withheld under section 2891a of this
provision.
Suspension of Resident Energy Conservation Program (sec. 3032)
The committee recommends a provision that would suspend the
Department of Defense's Resident Energy Conservation Program
(RECP) until the Secretary of Defense can certify that 100
percent of military housing on installations is individually
metered and certified by an independent entity through an
energy audit. Furthermore, the provision would terminate the
RECP if the Secretary of Defense is unable to certify the
individual usage 2 years after enactment of this Act.
The committee notes that, while the RECP initiative was
established with good intentions, servicemembers are, in some
cases, paying higher energy costs than their actual usage
merits. The committee understands that many installations were
never designed or wired for individual usage and believes that
these excessive charges, in many places, are erroneous.
Access by tenants to historical maintenance information for privatized
military housing (sec. 3033)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring each private contractor that provides housing
under this subchapter to provide prospective tenants with
information regarding maintenance conducted at prospective
housing units for the previous 10 years.
Prohibition on use of call centers outside the United States for
maintenance calls by tenants of privatized military housing
(sec. 3034)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by adding a section prohibiting any private contractor who is
responsible for military housing from using a maintenance work
order call center outside the United States. The provision
would be effective 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Radon testing for privatized military housing (sec. 3035)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than March 1,
2020, to the congressional defense committees that identifies
all Department of Defense installations that should be
monitored for levels of radon in excess to that in the
Environmental Protection Agency's recommendations. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
establish testing procedures for all privatized military
housing at installations that have been identified as requiring
radon monitoring and would include a requirement to complete
initial testing for all privatized military housing by June 1,
2020. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to certify on an annual basis that radon testing is being
conducted for privatized military housing.
Expansion of windows covered by requirement to use window fall
prevention devices in privatized military housing (sec. 3036)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2879(c) of title 10, United States Code, by striking
``24 inches'' and inserting ``42 inches''.
Requirements relating to move out and maintenance with respect to
privatized military housing (sec. 3037)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of
the military departments, to develop a uniform move-out
checklist for tenants of privatized military housing. This
provision would also require that all maintenance issues and
work orders related to health and safety issues at privatized
military housing be reported to the commander of the
installation at which the housing is located.

Subtitle C--Long-Term Quality Assurance

Development of standardized documentation, templates, and forms for
privatized military housing (sec. 3041)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretary of
each military department, to develop standard documentation,
templates, and forms for privatized military housing. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to issue
guidance within 30 days of the enactment of this Act and to
deliver an implementation plan to the congressional defense
committees not later than February 1, 2020.
The committee notes that a growing concern among family
members is differing leases, processes, and protocols across
installations. The committee believes that streamlining and
consolidating, where possible, will allow the Department of
Defense to have a better understanding of the privatized
housing program. The committee also believes that this will
assist the military departments', specifically the chain of
command's, oversight of the program.
Council on privatized military housing (sec. 3042)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
assistant secretary for energy, installations, and environment
of each military department to establish a military housing
council to identify and resolve problems with military housing
managed by private contractors. The provision would require
each council to comprise not fewer than 2 civil engineers, 2
chiefs of a housing management office, and 2 installation
commanders, who would each serve 2-year terms. Finally, the
provision would require the councils to submit to the Secretary
of Defense reports on their findings for the previous term, not
later than October 1 of each year, with the first reports due
no later than 60 days after the councils' first meetings.
The committee notes that, until the recent hearings of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, the military departments were
unaware of the abhorrent conditions that many of its
servicemembers were living in with little to no support from
the military chain of command. The committee believes that
councils, such as the one that this provision would require,
would help leaders at the highest levels stay in touch with the
ground truth of military housing conditions and better support
servicemembers and their families.
Requirements relating to management of privatized military housing
(sec. 3043)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring the Secretary of Defense to ensure that operating
agreements for any Department of Defense installation where on-
base housing is managed by a private contractor include certain
requirements.
The provision would require the installation commander to
conduct an annual review of the mold mitigation and pest
control plan for the on-base contractor and allow the use of
assigned bio-environmental or contractor equivalent personnel
to test for mold, unsafe water, and other health and safety
conditions if requested by the head of the base housing
management office.
The provision would include the requirements for the head
of each housing management office to: conduct a physical
inspection before and after tenants occupy a residence;
establish contact with the tenants at the 15- and 60-day marks
after move-in; and maintain all test results relating to the
health and safety condition of a housing unit for the life of
the contract.
Finally, the provision would include requirements for the
private contractor to: disclose bonus structures for community
managers and regional executives relating to maintenance
budgets to the Secretary of Defense; share test results with
tenants and housing management offices no later than 3 days
after receipt; not conduct any promotion events or incentivize
tenants to fill out comment cards or satisfaction surveys
without approval from the chief of the installation housing
management office; and notify a tenant of his or her right to
assistance from the installation legal assistance office and
provide a copy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Sustainment prior to a tenant's agreeing to any form of
settlement, nondisclosure, or release of liability.
Requirements relating to contracts for privatized military housing
(sec. 3044)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
by requiring the Secretary of Defense to include certain
requirements for any contract with a term of more than 10 years
for the purpose of privatized military housing. The provision
would require that contracts: allow the Department of Defense
to renegotiate the contract at minimum every 5 years, prohibit
the continued working under the contract of any employee who
has committed work order fraud under the contract, and require
the private contractor to pay a tenant's relocation fees and
living expenses if a tenant is required to move due to health
or environmental hazards.
Withholding of incentive fees for landlords of privatized military
housing for failure to remedy a health or environmental hazard
(sec. 3045)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
to require the Secretary of Defense to withhold incentive fees,
which would otherwise be paid to a private contractor under
this subchapter, for failure to remedy a health or
environmental hazard.
Expansion of direct hire authority for Department of Defense for
childcare services providers for Department child development
centers to include direct hire authority for installation
military housing office personnel (sec. 3046)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 559 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) to extend direct hire
authority to fill civil service position vacancies at
installation military housing offices.
Plan on establishment of Department of Defense jurisdiction over off-
base privatized military housing (sec. 3047)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of
the military departments, to submit a plan to establish
jurisdiction at locations with privatized military housing not
located on a military installation to the congressional defense
committees not later than 30 days after the enactment of this
Act.

Subtitle D--Other Housing Matters

Lead-based paint testing and reporting (sec. 3051)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a policy under which a
qualified individual may access a military installation to
conduct lead testing, with all results to be shared with the
installation civil engineer, housing management office, and
major subordinate command with jurisdiction over the
installation. Additionally, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to annually submit a report, not later
than February 1st of each year, to the congressional defense
committees that includes: (1) A certification indicating
whether the Department of Defense's military housing is in
compliance with the lead-based paint requirements of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (Public Law 94-469); (2) A detailed
summary of the certification requirements and compliance broken
out by military service; (3) The total number of military
housing units that were inspected; (4) The number of military
housing units that were not inspected; (5) The number of
housing units that tested positive for lead; and (6) What
abatement procedures were taken.

Satisfaction survey for tenants of military housing (sec. 3052)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that each military department
utilizes the same electronic satisfaction survey for all
surveys relating to the customer service experience of all
military housing residents, those living in both government and
privately managed housing units. The committee believes that
one standard survey will allow for improved data collection to
pinpoint problems and best practices with ease and assist in
regaining the trust of military families and servicemembers.

Information on legal services provided to members of the Armed Forces
harmed by health or environmental hazards at military housing
(sec. 3053)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later than 90 days
after the enactment of this Act to the congressional defense
committees on the legal services available to members of the
armed services who have been harmed by health and environmental
hazards while living in military housing.

Mitigation of risks posed by certain items in military family housing
units (sec. 3054)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to allow a resident of a military family
housing unit to anchor any furniture, television, or large
appliance to the wall of the unit for purposes of preventing
such item from tipping over without incurring a penalty or
obligation to repair the wall upon vacating the unit. Further,
the provision would require the Secretary to ensure that
certain freestanding furniture taller than 27 inches be
securely anchored in furnished military family housing units
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

Technical correction to certain payments for lessors of privatized
military housing (sec. 3055)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 606(d) of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) by
authorizing additional payments to privatized housing projects
for which any phase or portion of the project agreement was
first finalized and signed on or before September 30, 2014.

Pilot program to build and monitor use of single family homes (sec.
3056)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to carry out a pilot program to build and
monitor the use of not fewer than five single family homes for
members of the Army and their families.

Items of Special Interest

Compliance with housing laws

The committee is concerned that military family housing
units under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative often
do not meet the minimum requirements of Federal, State, and
local codes. The committee notes that servicemembers and their
families continuously make sacrifices to serve their country
and should not be living in substandard or unsafe housing. The
committee is concerned that future construction of family
housing units may fall prey to similar second-rate construction
practices if the Department of Defense does not implement more
stringent requirements. The committee understands that Federal,
State, and local governments often have different housing codes
with varying standards.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the Committees of Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than February
1, 2020, on a plan to develop a Department of Defense standard
to ensure that all future construction for family housing, as
defined under chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
meets a high-quality standard, as designated by the Secretary.
The Secretary shall include in this report a plan for
establishing a standard code for future housing construction,
including standard inspection and permitting processes and the
resources needed to implement and conduct oversight for
compliance to such a standard.

Comptroller General review of Basic Allowance for Housing rate
determination process

According to the Department of Defense (DOD), the goal of
the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program is to ``help
members cover the costs of housing in the private sector.'' To
determine the cost of private sector housing and set local BAH
rates, the DOD employs a contractor to collect rent and utility
data from approximately 300 Military Housing Areas in the
United States. The DOD states that the current BAH method
``ensures a more accurate correlation between allowance
payments and rental prices.''
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85) created the BAH program out of
dissatisfaction with the legacy Basic Allowance for Quarters
and Variable Housing Allowance system. Initially, the BAH
program was designed to pay for approximately 85 percent of
servicemember housing costs. Over time, BAH rates increased to
cover 100 percent of a servicemember's estimated housing costs.
Concerned with the growth in military personnel costs, in
2015 the DOD requested, and the Congress authorized, a gradual
reduction in BAH. From 2015 to 2019, BAH was to be reduced by 1
percent per year to eventually cover 95 percent of a
servicemember's estimated housing costs. However, despite this
mandated reduction in BAH, recent studies suggest that BAH has
remained artificially high when compared to local housing costs
in many Military Housing Areas.
In 2018, the Center for Naval Analyses released a report
titled ``The Effect of the BAH Changes on Privatized Family
Housing, Volume 1: Theory and Overall Results.'' The report
compared BAH to local housing costs and found that ``in most
Navy [public-private venture housing] locations, the BAH rates
actually increased compared to the local housing costs.'' Based
on these findings, the committee is concerned that the
underlying BAH rate determination process is ineffective in
achieving an ``accurate correlation'' of allowance payments and
local housing market costs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of DOD's policies and
processes for determining BAH. Preliminary observations shall
be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives by the end of February 2020.
At that time, a final product due date will be determined. The
review shall include: (1) An explanation of DOD's current
process for setting BAH; (2) A quantitative assessment of
whether the DOD implemented recent reductions in BAH in
accordance with the law; (3) A discussion of alternative
methods for calculating BAH that may be more objective in
capturing military housing area rental costs; and (4) An
assessment of the feasibility of requiring BAH to align with
other housing cost data captured by the Federal government.

Consideration of privatized housing conditions in evaluation of
commanders and senior enlisted personnel

The committee is aware that the Services are taking steps
to address the shortcomings of the chain of command in
oversight of privatized military housing. The committee is
concerned, however, that lasting institutional changes need to
be made in order to ensure that effective oversight over
privatized housing occurs. As such, the committee strongly
believes that the Services should review how commanders and
senior enlisted personnel are evaluated related to the
oversight of privatized housing. The committee notes two types
of metrics that could be considered, when appropriate: the
facility condition index and the results of installation-
specific resident satisfaction surveys. The committee strongly
encourages the Department to examine which other areas related
to privatized housing would spark a lasting response from
commanders and the senior enlisted personnel responsible for
privatized housing.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to brief the congressional defense committees not
later than October 1, 2019, on the criteria currently being
used and any metrics that could be used regarding privatized
military housing, including those relevant to the evaluation of
commanders and other servicemembers. The briefing shall include
a service by service comparison and an implementation timeline
for the institution of chosen metrics.

Plan for management of privatized military housing units if a contract
relating to those housing units is rescinded

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
does not have a plan in place to move forward in the event that
an installation housing contract is rescinded by the Secretary
of Defense. The committee notes that, when asked, the
Department has not had a unified answer about the liabilities,
both financial and organizational, that the Services would face
in this contingency. Whether it is re-competition of the
agreement or the service's taking responsibility for housing,
the committee needs to understand what the ramifications of
such decisions would be.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no
later than February 1, 2020, on a formal written contingency
plan for the management of housing units for each military
installation under subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code. The report shall include the financial
liability for each installation as well as alternative courses
of actions should the current contract be terminated.

Referral to Department of Justice of allegations of military housing
fraud

The committee notes with grave concern that testimony
provided by military families before the committee described
allegations of potentially fraudulent activity by private
housing companies engaged in real estate agreements with the
Department of Defense. These allegations include but are not
limited to: (1) Tampering with housing satisfaction surveys
submitted by military families; (2) Unwarranted charges to
outgoing military tenants to replace carpets or to pay for
other maintenance problems without remedying these issues
before the arrival of the next military family; (3) Maintenance
offices ``closing out'' work order requests without adequately
resolving the underlying problem; (4) Disregarding fixed-rate
leases and increasing rent prices despite guarantees to renew
leases at market rate; (5) Tampering with the results of air
quality inspections, including opening windows during air
quality checks to disguise low air quality; and (6) Hiring
unqualified, inexperienced employees to address maintenance
problems and concerns.
Therefore, the committee urges each secretary of the
military departments to conduct an in-depth review and
assessment of each such real estate agreement under the
jurisdiction of that secretary. Review of each agreement is
necessary, given the scope of issues associated with the
privatized military housing program and the lack of
standardization in real estate agreements between the DOD and
private housing companies. Further, the committee urges each
military department, following its review and assessment, to
request that the Department of Justice conduct criminal or
civil investigations into whether any private housing company
has engaged in conspiracy to defraud the United States (18
U.S.C. 371) or any other conduct in contravention of any law
prohibiting fraud, waste, abuse, or any other criminal or civil
violation.

Report on service training for installation commanders

The committee is concerned that the current unsatisfactory
state of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative is, in
part, due to a lack of oversight by the military chain of
command. The committee notes that the Services have admitted
that the chain of command must have a larger role in ensuring
the safety and welfare of its servicemembers and that many of
the available education opportunities in pre-command courses,
public enumeration of resident responsibilities, and on-base
legal resources have either been discontinued or need robust
enhancement.
Accordingly, not later than September 1, 2019, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, to deliver a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on Department-wide standards and
education requirements to address the concern that the chain of
command feels that it does not have the necessary training or
authority to serve as an advocate for servicemembers. The
report shall include a plan for pre-command courses with an
emphasis on privatized housing oversight, to include
instruction that unit commanders and installation commanders
are ultimately responsible for ensuring safe, clean, adequate
housing that meets all Federal, State, and local codes and
standards for habitability. Additionally, this report shall
include a plan for how new military family tenants will be
educated on what responsibilities they have to maintain their
homes and how to report health, safety, and welfare concerns.

Review of Air Force Civil Engineer Center organizational structure

The committee notes that during its investigation of the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI), a common
theme throughout the Department of Defense was the chain of
commands either not being aware, or not feeling empowered to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of its servicemembers.
The committee believes that, while the chain of command must be
engaged at the installation level, senior civilian and military
leadership in the Department must be aware of and able to
conduct oversight germane to the privatized military housing
issues.
The committee is aware that the Department of the Air Force
is the only service that has a civilian responsible for the
service's installation engineering command, the U.S. Air Force
Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). The committee notes that this
position reports directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment without any
flow of information to uniformed Air Force officers in the
major subordinate command. The committee believes that the
military chain of command must be reinserted at the
installation level and that the health, safety, and welfare of
on-base servicemembers and their families is the responsibility
of the entire chain of command. The committee also notes the
importance of civilian counterparts from the Senior Executive
Service in maintaining the institutional knowledge of the
command.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to review the organizational structure of AFCEC,
including information flow through both military and civilian
channels. During the review, the Secretary of the Air Force
should consider the structure of the other services'
engineering commands and analyze which structure is most
beneficial for the flow of information and for conducting
appropriate oversight of the MHPI program. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to deliver a briefing to
the congressional defense committees no later than November 1,
2019.

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs and Authorizations

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the activities of the Department
of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.
Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's
defense environmental cleanup activities.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's other
defense activities.
Nuclear energy (sec. 3104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy's
nuclear energy activities.

Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Technical corrections to National Nuclear Security Administration Act
and Atomic Energy Defense Act (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
certain technical corrections and conforming amendments to the
National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law 106-
65) and the Atomic Energy Defense Act (Public Law 107-314).
National Nuclear Security Administration Personnel System (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would adapt the
personnel system demonstration project carried out by the
National Nuclear Security Administration since 2008 into a
permanent alternative personnel system.
Contracting, program management, scientific, engineering, and technical
positions at National Nuclear Security Administration (sec.
3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would remove the
statutory cap on the use of excepted service hiring authority
pursuant to section 3241 of the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (Public Law 106-65) at the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). This provision would not modify
the statutory cap on the number of federal employees at the
NNSA.
The committee continues to encourage the NNSA to prioritize
use of this hiring authority, as well as its federal billets,
to support priority programs in the Office of Defense Programs
and supporting functions. The committee also expects that the
NNSA will support full staffing of the Office of Cost
Estimating and Program Evaluation, which contributes value to
the organization well above its small size.
Prohibition on use of laboratory-directed research and development
funds for general and administrative overhead costs (sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of laboratory-directed research and development funds
for general and administrative overhead costs at the National
Nuclear Security Administration's laboratories, sites, and
plants.
Prohibition on use of funds for advanced naval nuclear fuel system
based on low-enriched uranium (sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of any funds at the National
Nuclear Security Administration to conduct research and
development of an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on
low-enriched uranium unless the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of the Navy submit
certain certifications to the congressional defense committees.
The committee notes that section 3118(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) required the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a determination as to whether the United States
should continue to pursue such research and development.
Pursuant to this section, in a letter to the congressional
defense committees dated March 25, 2018, the Secretaries of
Energy and the Navy stated that such a research and development
effort would cost about $1 billion over a 10-to-15 year period,
``with success not assured.'' It would also result in a reactor
design that would be ``less capable, more expensive, and
unlikely to support current life-of-ship submarine reactors,''
which would reduce operational availability due to mid-life
refueling requirements. As a result, the Secretaries of Energy
and the Navy determined that the United States should not
pursue such research and development.

Subtitle C--Plans and Reports

Estimation of costs of meeting defense environmental cleanup milestones
required by consent orders (sec. 3121)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to submit, along with the budget
justification materials, a report on the cost of meeting
milestones required by a consent order at each defense nuclear
facility at which environmental cleanup activities are taking
place.
Extension of suspension of certain assessments relating to nuclear
weapons stockpile (sec. 3122)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
suspension through fiscal year 2023 of a requirement for the
Comptroller General of the United States to review the budget
submission of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The
committee notes that the Comptroller General will conduct a
similar review through this time period, as required by section
1043 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81), as amended.
Repeal of requirement for review relating to enhanced procurement
authority (sec. 3123)
The committee recommends a provision that would terminate
the requirement for the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the Secretary of Energy's enhanced procurement
authority after fiscal year 2019.
Determination of effect of treaty obligations with respect to producing
tritium (sec. 3124)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to determine whether the Agreement for
Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense
Purposes, signed at Washington on July 3, 1958, permits
obtaining uranium from the United Kingdom to produce tritium
for defense purposes using reactor irradiation. The committee
supports a broad interpretation of the Agreement, which
currently allows the United States and the United Kingdom to
share resources and information related to atomic energy
defense activities. The provision would require the Secretary
to submit the determination to the congressional defense
committees no later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Assessment of high energy density physics (sec. 3125)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies
of Science to conduct an assessment of the current status of
the field of high energy density physics. The committee notes
that scientific study in this subject has relevant applications
in the NNSA's defense programs and also in civilian fields. The
assessment would be due to the congressional defense committees
not later than 18 months after the Administrator of the NNSA
enters into the arrangement.

Budget Items

Federal salaries
The budget request included $434.7 million for Federal
Salaries and Expenses at the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), of which $326.8 million was identified
for salaries and benefits.
The committee notes that, according to the NNSA's budget
documentation, this salary amount would support 1,753 federal
employees, while the statutory cap remains 1,690.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.7
million in Federal Salaries and Expenses, for a total of $423.0
million.
Technology maturation initiatives
The budget request included $39.3 million for research and
development (R&D) support; $236.2 million for R&D certification
and safety; $46.5 million for enhanced surety; and $48.4
million for component manufacturing development.
The committee notes that the early development work for the
W87-1 program, formerly known as Interoperable Warhead-1, was
suspended for 5 years. In order to recover lost schedule
produced by that delay, as well as enable other future
modernization programs, the committee encourages the National
Nuclear Security Administration's technology maturation
initiatives. The committee believes that these investments,
highlighted in the Administrator's unfunded priorities list,
will help modernize obsolete materials and processes, increase
production capacity and efficiency, and buy down risk.
Accordingly, the committee recommends increases as follows:
$1.0 million for R&D support, for a total of $40.3 million;
$10.0 million for R&D certification and safety, for a total of
$246.2 million; $8.0 million for enhanced surety, for a total
of $54.4 million; and $10.0 million for component manufacturing
development, for a total of $58.4 million.
Stockpile Responsiveness Program
The budget request included $39.8 million for the Stockpile
Responsiveness Program at the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
The committee strongly supports this program as an
effective tool to assist with recruitment, retention, and
training of a highly-skilled workforce as well as a means of
improving resilience of the nuclear enterprise more broadly.
The committee also understands that the program may be expanded
to include the production sites to appreciate the same benefits
outside of the design and engineering laboratories.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $40.8
million, for a total of $80.6 million, for the Stockpile
Responsiveness Program.
Nonproliferation Stewardship Program
The budget request included $304.0 million in Proliferation
Detection, of which $22.5 million was for the Nonproliferation
Stewardship Program.
The committee notes that this program intends to initiate a
strategic review of mission needs across the U.S. government in
fiscal year 2020 while simultaneously beginning testbed
development. The committee encourages the program to formulate
a multi-year plan to address gaps in the proliferation
detection architecture and then request funds for technological
approaches to closing those gaps in future fiscal years.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.5
million for the Nonproliferation Stewardship Program, for a
total of $284.5 in Proliferation Detection.

Emergency Operations

The budget request included $35.5 million in the National
Nuclear Security Administration's Emergency Operations (EO)
program within Nuclear Counterterrorism Incident Response.
The committee notes that the EO program has taken on
additional Department of Energy-wide roles in recent years,
including development and implementation of several
presidential orders relating to homeland security and
Department-wide continuity of government and operations. While
the committee commends the EO program for its high-quality
work, the committee believes that the NNSA's budget (and the
050 budget account writ large) should not pay for Department-
wide functions above its proportional share.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $9.6
million for Emergency Operations within Nuclear
Counterterrorism Incident Response, for a total of $25.9
million. The committee encourages the Department to provide
sufficient funding for the EO program using other appropriate
accounts.

Enterprise Assessments

The budget request included $81.3 million for the Office of
Enterprise Assessments (EA) at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The committee notes that $3.0 million of the EA budget
request was identified to hire employees to support the new
Performance Improvement Office within the Office of the DOE
Chief Financial Officer. The committee notes that these
employees would support non-defense, DOE-wide performance
improvement efforts. As such, the committee believes that they
would be more appropriately funded using non-053 budget
accounts.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0
million for the Office of Enterprise Assessment, for a total of
$78.3 million.

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

The budget request for the Department of Energy included
$116.0 million for the Yucca Mountain and Interim Storage
programs, of which $26.0 million was for the Defense Nuclear
Waste Disposal Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of
$26.0 million for the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund.

Items of Special Interest

Assessment of lithium sustainment program and production project

The committee is aware that there is an increased demand
for lithium as the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) conducts multiple life extension programs (LEPs). In
2015, the Government Accountability Office published a report
(``NNSA Should Ensure Equal Consideration of Alternatives for
Lithium Production,'' GAO-15-525) that found that the NNSA has
been unable to produce lithium because of deteriorating
conditions in Manhattan Project-era infrastructure at the Y-12
National Security Complex in Tennessee. Instead, the NNSA
relies on a less efficient process that removes impurities from
existing lithium supplies. The NNSA intends to use this process
as part of a bridging strategy until it develops a new
production capability. Design of this project at Y-12 has just
begun and is expected to become operational in fiscal year
2027. The committee is concerned that the NNSA intends to rely
on the current aging facilities through the next decade for
ongoing LEPs and modernization programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of the
NNSA's planning and assumptions for the lithium sustainment
program and the production capability project. The review shall
include: (1) The status of the sustainment program, including
the supply of lithium, projected ability to complete activities
through 2030, and management of the program; and (2) The status
of design activities and current cost and schedule estimates
for the lithium production capability project and how these
schedules align with the LEPs and other modernization projects.
The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing on initial
findings no later than July 1, 2020, with a report submitted by
a date to be agreed upon at the time of the briefing.

Briefing on ability to meet requirements for plutonium pit production

In April 2018, the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) completed an engineering assessment of four options to
produce plutonium pits to meet the requirement of the
Department of Defense (DOD) for 80 pits per year by 2030. The
report provided the basis for the Administrator of the NNSA's
recommended alternative for NNSA's plutonium capabilities. On
May 4, 2018, the Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council provided
to the committee written certification that the NNSA's proposed
strategy was acceptable to the Secretary of Defense and
``represent[ed] a resilient and responsive option'' for
production of 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030. The proposed
strategy would produce 30 pits per year at Los Alamos National
Laboratory by 2026 and the additional 50 pits per year by
repurposing the cancelled Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
at the Savannah River Site by 2030.
As required by section 3120 of the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232), the DOD submitted an independent assessment of NNSA's
strategy in April 2019. The assessment concluded that a key
milestone will be achieving the goal of 30 pits per year at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory. The assessment further
concluded, ``[n]o available option can be expected to provide
80 pits per year by 2030.'' The assessment also called on the
DOD to ``evaluate how best to respond to this requirement
shortfall.''
In light of the specific concerns raised in the independent
assessment of NNSA's plutonium strategy, not later than
December 1, 2019, the Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council
shall provide to the congressional defense committees a
briefing on the impacts to military requirements and other
nuclear programs and possible options to mitigate these risks
in the event that the DOD's requirement for 80 pits per year is
not met by 2030.

Comptroller General review of applicability of Section 809 Panel
recommendations to the Department of Energy

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) tasked the Secretary of
Defense to establish an advisory panel on streamlining and
codifying acquisition regulations for the Department of Defense
(DOD). Between January 2018 and January 2019, the Section 809
Panel issued several reports containing recommendations related
to improving the defense acquisition process. While these
recommendations were not aimed at the Department of Energy
(DOE), the committee believes that the DOE and its National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) face a number of the
same acquisition challenges as the DOD. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to assess the application of a subset of these recommendations
to the DOE and NNSA.
First, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
review issues affecting DOE's acquisition workforce.
Specifically, the committee is interested in DOE's workforce
planning efforts, particularly related to: (1) How the DOE
determines the number of acquisition professionals needed and
the skills and training required for those positions; (2)
Whether DOE's acquisition professionals attain the needed
training and skills; (3) Any challenges in recruitment and
retention of DOE's acquisition workforce; and (4) Any systemic
challenges for those professionals in performing their
acquisition oversight responsibilities.
Second, the committee finds the portfolio management
framework recommended by the Section 809 Panel compelling and
therefore directs the Comptroller General to review NNSA's
efforts to identify its base capabilities and the applicability
of a portfolio-based approach to managing its Defense Programs,
consistent with the recommendations made to the DOD by the
Section 809 Panel.
Finally, Volume 1 of the Section 809 Panel report provides
examples of essential audit and nonaudit services provided by
DOD agencies across the contract lifecycle. Most of these
services are performed pursuant to requirements in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, which are generally applicable to all
agencies, including the DOE. The committee directs the
Comptroller General to review how the DOE obtains the required
audit and nonaudit services and whether there are opportunities
for improvement or efficiency in how the DOE obtains these
services.
The Comptroller General should provide preliminary
briefings on these three topics by March 1, 2020, June 1, 2020,
and September 30, 2020, respectively, with reports to follow on
a timeline agreed to at the times of the briefings.

Comptroller General review of DOE Order 140.1

In May 2018, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a new
order, Order 140.1, that governs the interface of the DOE with
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). The
committee notes that the DNFSB has raised concerns that the new
order could limit the DNFSB's oversight of many defense nuclear
facilities. The committee also notes that the DOE issued Order
140.1 without consultation with the DNFSB or with the local
communities most impacted by the Department's nuclear
facilities.
The Board has communicated its concerns regarding DOE Order
140.1 in letters to the Secretary of Energy and has held public
hearings to gather information on its implementation by the
DOE. Specific concerns include possible new restrictions and
protocols regarding the Board's access to information,
facilities, and personnel that could diminish the Board's
ability to perform its statutory mandate. The Board also
conveyed a commitment to collaborate with the DOE to resolve
these concerns. The committee notes that the legislation
establishing the Board, section 314 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (Public Law 83-73; 42 U.S.C. 2286c(a)), provides that
``[t]he Secretary of Energy shall fully cooperate with the
Board and provide the Board with ready access to such
facilities, personnel, and information as the Board considers
necessary to carry out its responsibilities.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review DOE Order 140.1 and report on how
DOE's implementation of the order has affected the Board's
ability to meets its statutory responsibilities.
The Comptroller General shall provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committee no later than March 15, 2020,
with a report to follow at a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing.

Comptroller General study of radioactive waste at West Valley, New York

The committee recognizes that a disposal pathway is needed
for radioactive waste at the West Valley New York Service
Center and, in order for an informed decision to be made on the
appropriate option for future disposal, a report is necessary.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit to the congressional defense committees by
November 1, 2020, a report describing the following: (1) The
volumes, origins, and types of radioactive waste at the Western
New York Service Center in West Valley, New York; (2) What
options have been identified for disposal of each such type of
radioactive waste; (3) What is known about the costs of, and
time frames for, each such option; (4) The benefits and
challenges of each such option, according to the State of New
York and the Department of Energy; and (5) As of the date of
the enactment of this Act, how much has been spent on the
disposal of radioactive waste associated with the demonstration
project prescribed by section 2(a) of the West Valley
Demonstration Project Act (Public Law 96-368) and what volumes
and types of radioactive waste have been disposed of from the
Western New York Service Center.

Comptroller General to continue ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste
Treatment Plant

The committee notes that the Department of Energy's Office
of Environmental Management (EM) continues to appear on the
Government Accountability Office's High Risk List report, which
cites programs vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement. EM's largest project resides in Hanford,
Washington. This site, whose mission is nuclear waste cleanup
and environmental restoration, has faced numerous technical
challenges, cost overruns, and schedule delays.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to continue its ongoing evaluation of the
Hanford Waste Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule
performance, technology readiness levels, contractor assurance,
and project management, with a briefing and time for this
briefing to be mutually agreed upon.

Plutonium science and metallurgy

The committee is aware that numerous entities at the
Department of Energy (DOE), the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), and laboratories of both entities are
engaged in efforts to better understand plutonium science and
metallurgy. The committee is concerned, however, that these
efforts are not fully coordinated and integrated.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the
NNSA, in consultation with the Director of the Office of
Science at the DOE, to provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, no later than March 31, 2020, on research
in plutonium science and metallurgy at the NNSA. The report
should list key fundamental questions that will be addressed
within the next 5 to 10 years with descriptions of programs
that are either ongoing or planned to address them. The report
shall also include a 5-year funding profile for plutonium
science and metallurgy, including applicable facilities and
capital equipment.

Report on the Department of Energy's Office of Legacy Management

Created in 2003, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of
Legacy Management (LM) serves as the long-term steward for
sites formerly used in nuclear weapons development and
production. After the DOE has finished remediation and cleanup
of contamination, LM assumes responsibility for site monitoring
and maintenance and performs other long-term duties such as
treating soil and groundwater to remedy any continuing hazards.
LM currently is responsible for about $78 billion, or 16
percent, of DOE's overall $494 billion in environmental
liabilities. Despite LM's already managing 100 sites around the
country with an annual budget of $150 million, LM-managed
environmental liabilities are expected to grow as more sites
are transferred from DOE's Office of Environmental Management.
The committee is concerned that LM is already struggling to
manage the current level of environmental liabilities, which
are expected to grow significantly.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to, no later than March 1, 2020, submit a
report to the committee on LM operations, including the nature
of its environmental liabilities, the steps LM is taking to
address the liabilities, the extent that LM's liabilities are
expected to grow over the next 10 years, and LM plans to
address growth in liabilities.

Report on the Department of Energy's tank closures

The Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for storing
and treating about 90 million gallons of radioactive and
hazardous waste, located in nearly 240 large underground tanks
at 3 sites across the country--the Hanford Site, the Savannah
River Site, and Idaho National Laboratory. As of 2019, the DOE
has treated about 7 million gallons of waste at the Savannah
River Site and has closed 9 of its 51 tanks in place by
removing the waste and then filling the empty tanks with grout.
At the Idaho site, the DOE has treated about 8 million gallons
of waste and closed 8 of its 11 tanks in place, also by
removing the waste and filling the tanks with grout.
Conversely, the DOE has not closed any of the 177 tanks at its
Hanford Site. In January 2019, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) reported that a final decision has not yet been
made on how to clean up and close Hanford's tanks. The GAO
noted that closing the tanks in place could cost about $18
billion less than removing the waste and then exhuming and
disposing of the tanks elsewhere.
Not later than January 1, 2020, the Secretary of Energy
shall provide to the congressional defense committees a report
that discusses tank closures at the Savannah River Site and
Idaho National Laboratory. The report shall include details on:
the status of tank closures at these two sites, including any
lessons learned; the extent to which the tank closures have met
environmental performance requirements; costs associated with
tank closure; and steps taken to ensure that closed tanks
continue to meet environmental performance requirements in the
future. The report shall also include the DOE's plans for
future tank closures at the Savannah River Site and Idaho
National Laboratory and the status of its plans for closing
tanks at the Hanford site. No later than January 1, 2021, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the
congressional defense committees on the status of tank closures
at the Hanford Site, including the costs and risks associated
with closing Hanford's tanks and any additional information
that may be useful related to tank closures at the Hanford
Site.

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at
$29.5 million, consistent with the budget request, but notes
extensive reservations with this authorization and Board
operations.
In 2018, the Board acknowledged that it was no longer
operating as effectively as it has at times in the past and
commissioned the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA) to perform an organizational assessment. While the
committee commends the Board for taking that step, the results
of the NAPA study, compiled in ``Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board Organizational Assessment'' (November 2018), paint
a disturbing picture.
Consistent with several other independent assessments over
the last 5 years, the NAPA study characterizes the Board's
recent contribution to the Department of Energy as
``negligible'' and describes its ``current subpar level and
quality of output.'' The report describes the relationship
between sitting Board members as ``often uncivil and
unhealthy,'' and the environment as characterized by a ``lack
of collegiality'' and ``mutual suspicion and distrust.'' In the
same time period, employee satisfaction and morale has declined
precipitously. These issues, in addition to insufficient
attention to professional development and career stewardship,
have contributed to high levels of personnel turnover and
difficulties in recruiting and retention of talented staff.
Additionally, the report notes, and the committee corroborates,
decreased levels of engagement with key stakeholders outside
the Board, including the Congress.
While the provisions recommended in Title 32 of this Act
would address some of the concerns raised by the NAPA report,
the committee believes that the sitting Board members must take
responsibility for changing the culture and improving the work
product of the Board to rectify current and persistent
deficiencies and to better execute its critical function.
Improvement of management and organization of Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the hiring of an executive director for operations as a senior
employee at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The
provision would also authorize the Chairman of the Board,
subject to the approval of the other Board members, to organize
the staff of the Board as the Chairman considers appropriate to
accomplish the mission of the Board.
The committee notes that this provision is consistent with
the recommendations of the National Academy of Public
Administration's report titled ``Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board Organizational Assessment'' (November 2018). Also
in keeping with that report's recommendations, the committee
encourages the Chairman to consult and communicate with the
staff and other Board members while considering organizational
changes.
Membership of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3203)
The committee recommends a provision that would, beginning
April 1, 2020, prohibit members of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board from serving on expired terms and from
serving two consecutive terms. The provision would also require
the President to enter into an arrangement with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to maintain a list of qualified
individuals who might be considered for nomination in case of a
vacancy. Finally, if the President is unable to submit a
nomination to fill a vacancy on the Board within 180 days, the
provision would require him to submit to the committee an
explanation of the reasons for that inability and a plan to
submit such a nomination within the following 90 days; this
required process would be repeated until the nomination had
been submitted.
The committee notes that several elements of this provision
are consistent with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) November 2018 study titled ``Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Organizational Assessment.''
The committee also notes that the subsection of the provision
related to Presidential reporting in case of inability to fill
a vacancy on the Board within 180 days is similar to a
provision originally in the Board's enabling statute at the
time of the Board's creation.
The committee understands that elements of this provision
would increase the risk of the Board's falling below a quorum
for a period of time but anticipates that other elements would
encourage the President to fill newly-created vacancies
promptly. The committee believes that the appalling conditions
described in the NAPA report merit consideration of more rapid
turnover of the Board's membership.

TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501)
The committee recommends a provision that would re-
authorize certain aspects of the Maritime Administration.

DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
FY 2020 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)

DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................ 3,696,429 -16,000 3,680,429
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................. 0 3,863,497 3,863,497
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY................................ 4,715,566 174,200 4,889,766
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY........................... 0 2,694,548 2,694,548
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................... 7,443,101 18,326 7,461,427
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................ 18,522,204 492,724 19,014,928
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................. 0 4,174,944 4,174,944
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC............................ 0 981,314 981,314
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY......................... 23,783,710 360,700 24,144,410
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................... 9,652,956 -163,823 9,489,133
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS................................. 3,090,449 3,090,449
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE........................... 16,784,279 1,701,800 18,486,079
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE............................ 2,889,187 2,889,187
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.............................. 2,414,383 2,414,383
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE...................... 0 1,667,961 1,667,961
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.............................. 20,687,857 662,100 21,349,957
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE................................. 5,109,416 -429,663 4,679,753
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND....................... 99,200 99,200
SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................ 118,888,737 16,182,628 135,071,365

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY.................. 12,192,771 151,355 12,344,126
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY.................. 20,270,499 -208,740 20,061,759
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.................... 45,616,122 719,653 46,335,775
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.................... 24,346,953 713,300 25,060,253
OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE.......................... 221,200 221,200
SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 102,647,545 1,375,568 104,023,113
EVALUATION...............................................

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY............................. 22,797,873 19,135,951 41,933,824
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES......................... 1,080,103 1,949,007 3,029,110
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG............................. 3,335,755 4,297,848 7,633,603
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY............................. 25,952,718 23,516,564 49,469,282
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS..................... 3,928,045 4,001,679 7,929,724
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES......................... 261,284 863,832 1,125,116
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE....................... 61,090 230,986 292,076
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE........................ 21,278,499 23,621,733 44,900,232
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, SPACE FORCE...................... 72,436 72,436
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE....................... 2,231,445 1,165,373 3,396,818
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.............................. 3,612,156 3,115,073 6,727,229
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE................... 37,399,341 144,000 37,543,341
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.............................. 1,933,869 1,933,869
UNDISTRIBUTED............................................. 0 -590,000 -590,000
SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............ 123,944,614 81,452,046 205,396,660

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL........................................ 143,476,503 -918,980 142,557,523
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS....... 7,816,815 7,816,815
SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL.................... 151,293,318 -918,980 150,374,338

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................................... 1,426,211 10,000 1,436,211
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....................... 985,499 985,499
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.............. 799,402 799,402
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........................... 363,499 363,499
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................................... 32,998,687 11,000 33,009,687
SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................. 36,573,298 21,000 36,594,298

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS... 533,347,512 98,112,262 631,459,774

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Army...................................................... 1,453,499 -196,500 1,256,999
Navy...................................................... 2,805,743 79,039 2,884,782
Air Force................................................. 2,179,230 -460,400 1,718,830
Defense-Wide.............................................. 2,504,190 23,645 2,527,835
Army National Guard....................................... 210,819 84,000 294,819
Air National Guard........................................ 165,971 57,000 222,971
Army Reserve.............................................. 60,928 60,928
Navy Reserve.............................................. 54,955 54,955
Air Force Reserve......................................... 59,750 9,800 69,550
NATO Security Investment Program.......................... 144,040 144,040
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 9,639,125 -403,416 9,235,709

FAMILY HOUSING
Construction, Army........................................ 141,372 141,372
O&M, Army................................................. 357,907 65,000 422,907
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps....................... 47,661 47,661
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps................................ 317,870 81,000 398,870
Construction, Air Force................................... 103,631 103,631
O&M, Air Force............................................ 295,016 65,000 360,016
O&M, Defense-Wide......................................... 57,000 57,000
Improvement Fund.......................................... 3,045 3,045
Unaccmp HSG Improvement Fund.............................. 500 500
SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING.................................. 1,324,002 211,000 1,535,002

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
Army BRAC................................................. 66,111 66,111
Navy BRAC................................................. 158,349 158,349
Air Force BRAC............................................ 54,066 54,066
SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE.................... 278,526 0 278,526

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS... 11,241,653 -192,416 11,049,237

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 544,589,165 97,919,846 642,509,011
051).....................................................

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)

DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS

ENERGY PROGRAMS
NUCLEAR ENERGY............................................ 137,808 137,808
SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS................................. 137,808 0 137,808

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES............................. 434,699 -11,700 422,999
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES........................................ 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.......................... 1,993,302 -29,100 1,964,202
NAVAL REACTORS............................................ 1,648,396 0 1,648,396
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION........ 16,485,000 29,000 16,514,000

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP............................. 5,506,501 0 5,506,501
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.................................. 1,035,339 -3,000 1,032,339
DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL............................ 26,000 -26,000 0
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........ 6,567,840 -29,000 6,538,840

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS............. 23,190,648 0 23,190,648

INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILTIIES SAFETY BOARD................... 29,450 29,450
SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION........ 29,450 0 29,450

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY 23,220,098 0 23,220,098
AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS............

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) 23,220,098 0 23,220,098

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST...... 567,809,263 97,919,846 665,729,109

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)

PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................ 381,541 381,541
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................. 4,645,755 -3,207,697 1,438,058
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY................................ 353,454 353,454
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY........................... 2,843,230 -2,694,548 148,682
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY................................... 1,139,650 -8,200 1,131,450
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................ 119,045 119,045
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................. 4,332,710 -4,235,244 97,466
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC............................ 1,186,128 -981,314 204,814
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY................................... 357,600 357,600
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS................................. 20,589 20,589
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE........................... 309,110 309,110
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE............................ 201,671 201,671
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE...................... 2,607,394 -1,667,961 939,433
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.............................. 4,193,098 -655,000 3,538,098
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE................................. 452,047 -5,000 447,047
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT..................................... 23,143,022 -13,454,964 9,688,058

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY.................. 204,124 204,124
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY.................. 164,410 164,410
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.................... 450,248 -322,000 128,248
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.................... 827,950 -426,000 401,950
SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION...... 1,646,732 -748,000 898,732

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY............................. 37,987,549 -19,214,611 18,772,938
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES......................... 1,986,599 -1,949,007 37,592
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG............................. 4,376,939 -4,293,648 83,291
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.......................... 4,075,530 4,075,530
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.......................... 728,448 728,448
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY............................. 31,734,683 -22,741,724 8,992,959
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS..................... 5,123,470 -3,658,679 1,464,791
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES......................... 886,868 -863,832 23,036
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE....................... 239,693 -230,986 8,707
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE........................ 33,028,712 -23,292,333 9,736,379
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE....................... 1,195,131 -1,165,373 29,758
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.............................. 3,291,982 -3,115,073 176,909
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE................... 8,448,612 -30,500 8,418,112
SUBTOTAL,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................ 133,104,216 -80,555,766 52,548,450

MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL........................................ 4,485,808 4,485,808
SUBTOTAL,MILITARY PERSONNEL............................... 4,485,808 0 4,485,808

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................................... 20,100 20,100
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.............. 163,596 163,596
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........................... 24,254 24,254
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................................... 347,746 347,746
COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF).................. 1,045,000 -100,000 945,000
SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS............................ 1,600,696 -100,000 1,500,696

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Army...................................................... 9,389,218 -9,288,500 100,718
Navy...................................................... 94,570 976,148 1,070,718
Air Force................................................. 314,738 1,525,700 1,840,438
Defense-Wide.............................................. 46,000 3,675,313 3,721,313
Army National Guard....................................... 50,000 50,000
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 9,844,526 -3,061,339 6,783,187

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET 173,825,000 -97,920,069 75,904,931
REQUEST..................................................

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)............. 741,634,263 -223 741,634,040

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 600).... 64,300 64,300

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
TITLE X--GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY....................... [5,000,000] [4,000,000]
TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY...................... [4,500,000] [2,500,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Senate
Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051)............... 544,589,165 97,919,846 642,509,011
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).......................... 23,220,098 23,220,098
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS................................. 173,825,000 -97,920,069 75,904,931
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)................................... 741,634,263 -223 741,634,040

TRANSFER OF AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS TO NON-DEFENSE FUNCTIONS
TRANSFER FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
CAPTAIN JAMES A. LOVELL FEDERAL HEALTH CARE CENTER.............. -127,000 -127,000
DOD-VA HEALTH CARE SHARING INCENTIVE FUND....................... -15,000 -15,000
SUBTOTAL, TRANSFER FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).... -142,000 -142,000

OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR
ALREADY AUTHORIZED

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES................................ 34,000 34,000
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY............... 8,000 8,000
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY.................. 34,000 34,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).................. 76,000 0 76,000

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS.................................... 8,421,000 8,421,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)...................... 8,421,000 0 8,421,000

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)......... 8,497,000 0 8,497,000

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051)........................... 718,348,165 -223 718,347,942
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).......................... 23,220,098 23,220,098
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)................................ 8,421,000 8,421,000
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050.......... 749,989,263 -223 749,989,040

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY RETIREMENT 8,577,000 8,577,000
FUND...........................................................
REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY........................ 1,818,000 1,818,000
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS............................................. -1,869,000 -1,869,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).................. 8,526,000 0 8,526,000

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS AND 1,495,000 1,495,000
OTHER..........................................................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053)................ 1,495,000 0 1,495,000

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND...................... 54,000 54,000
PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER........................ 514,000 514,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)...................... 568,000 0 568,000

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050)................ 10,578,000 0 10,578,000

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051)........................... 726,874,165 -223 726,873,942
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).......................... 24,715,098 24,715,098
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)................................ 8,989,000 8,989,000
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)....................... 760,578,263 -223 760,578,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
2 UTILITY F/W 1 16,000 -1 -16,000 0 0
AIRCRAFT..........
Program zeroed [-1] [-16,000]
out in FYDP....
4 RQ-11 (RAVEN)...... 0 23,510 0 23,510
ROTARY
5 TACTICAL UNMANNED 0 12,100 0 12,100
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
(TUAS)............
8 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 48 806,849 48 806,849
IIIA REMAN........
9 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 190,870 0 190,870
IIIA REMAN AP.....
10 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 0 3 105,000 3 105,000
IIIB NEW BUILD....
Increase [3] [105,000]
fielding for
Active and ARNG
units..........
12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 73 1,411,540 -7 -140,000 66 1,271,540
MODEL (MYP).......
Funding ahead [-7] [-140,000]
of acquisition
strategy.......
13 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 0 79,572 0 79,572
MODEL (MYP) AP....
14 UH-60 BLACK HAWK L 25 169,290 8 35,000 33 204,290
AND V MODELS......
Increase [8] [35,000]
fielding for
ARNG units.....
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 8 140,290 8 140,290
16 CH-47 HELICOPTER AP 0 18,186 0 18,186
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
19 UNIVERSAL GROUND 0 2,090 0 2,090
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
(UAS).............
20 GRAY EAGLE MODS2... 0 14,699 0 14,699
21 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 35,189 0 35,189
RECON (MIP).......
22 AH-64 MODS......... 0 58,172 0 58,172
23 CH-47 CARGO 0 11,785 0 11,785
HELICOPTER MODS
(MYP).............
24 GRCS SEMA MODS 0 5,677 0 5,677
(MIP).............
25 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) 0 6,566 0 6,566
26 EMARSS SEMA MODS 0 3,859 0 3,859
(MIP).............
27 UTILITY/CARGO 0 15,476 0 15,476
AIRPLANE MODS.....
28 UTILITY HELICOPTER 0 6,744 0 6,744
MODS..............
29 NETWORK AND MISSION 0 105,442 0 105,442
PLAN..............
30 COMMS, NAV 0 164,315 0 164,315
SURVEILLANCE......
32 GATM ROLLUP........ 0 30,966 0 30,966
33 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 8,983 0 8,983
34 UAS MODS........... 0 10,205 0 10,205
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
35 AIRCRAFT 0 52,297 0 52,297
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.........
36 SURVIVABILITY CM... 0 8,388 0 8,388
37 CMWS............... 0 13,999 0 13,999
38 COMMON INFRARED 0 168,784 0 168,784
COUNTERMEASURES
(CIRCM)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
39 AVIONICS SUPPORT 0 1,777 0 1,777
EQUIPMENT.........
40 COMMON GROUND 0 18,624 0 18,624
EQUIPMENT.........
41 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 0 48,255 0 48,255
SYSTEMS...........
42 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 32,738 0 32,738
44 LAUNCHER, 2.75 0 2,201 0 2,201
ROCKET............
45 LAUNCHER GUIDED 9 991 9 991
MISSILE: LONGBOW
HELLFIRE XM2......
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 164 3,696,429 4 -16,000 168 3,680,429
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
1 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 0 0 0 113,857 0 113,857
AND TEST
PROCUREMENT.......
Transfer back [0] [113,857]
to base funding
2 M-SHORAD-- 0 0 17 103,800 17 103,800
PROCUREMENT.......
Transfer back [17] [103,800]
to base funding
3 MSE MISSILE........ 0 0 138 698,603 138 698,603
Transfer back [138] [698,603]
to base funding
4 INDIRECT FIRE 0 0 0 239,237 0 239,237
PROTECTION
CAPABILITY INC 2-I
Full funding of [0] [229,900]
Iron Dome
battery........
Transfer back [0] [9,337]
to base funding
5 THAAD.............. 0 0 37 425,900 37 425,900
THAAD program [37] [425,900]
transfer from
MDA............
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
6 HELLFIRE SYS 0 0 1,870 193,284 1,870 193,284
SUMMARY...........
Transfer back [1,870] [193,284]
to base funding
7 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 0 0 609 233,353 609 233,353
MSLS (JAGM).......
Transfer back [609] [233,353]
to base funding
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 0 0 672 138,405 672 138,405
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
Transfer back [672] [138,405]
to base funding
9 TOW 2 SYSTEM 0 0 1,460 114,340 1,460 114,340
SUMMARY...........
Transfer back [1,460] [114,340]
to base funding
10 TOW 2 SYSTEM 0 0 0 10,500 0 10,500
SUMMARY AP........
Transfer back [0] [10,500]
to base funding
11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 0 0 6,489 797,213 6,489 797,213
(GMLRS)...........
Transfer back [6,489] [797,213]
to base funding
12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 0 0 2,982 27,555 2,982 27,555
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)............
Transfer back [2,982] [27,555]
to base funding
14 ARMY TACTICAL MSL 0 0 146 209,842 146 209,842
SYS (ATACMS)--SYS
SUM...............
Transfer back [146] [209,842]
to base funding
MODIFICATIONS
16 PATRIOT MODS....... 0 0 0 279,464 0 279,464
Transfer back [0] [279,464]
to base funding
17 ATACMS MODS........ 0 0 0 85,320 0 85,320
Transfer back [0] [85,320]
to base funding
18 GMLRS MOD.......... 0 0 0 5,094 0 5,094
Transfer back [0] [5,094]
to base funding
19 STINGER MODS....... 0 0 0 81,615 0 81,615
Transfer back [0] [81,615]
to base funding
20 AVENGER MODS....... 0 0 0 14,107 0 14,107
Transfer back [0] [14,107]
to base funding
21 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 0 0 0 3,469 0 3,469
Transfer back [0] [3,469]
to base funding
22 MLRS MODS.......... 0 0 0 39,019 0 39,019
Transfer back [0] [39,019]
to base funding
23 HIMARS 0 0 0 12,483 0 12,483
MODIFICATIONS.....
Transfer back [0] [12,483]
to base funding
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
24 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 0 0 26,444 0 26,444
PARTS.............
Transfer back [0] [26,444]
to base funding
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
25 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 0 0 0 10,593 0 10,593
Transfer back [0] [10,593]
to base funding
TOTAL MISSILE 0 0 14,420 3,863,497 14,420 3,863,497
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
2 ARMORED MULTI 65 264,040 65 264,040
PURPOSE VEHICLE
(AMPV)............
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
3 STRYKER (MOD)...... 0 144,387 0 249,200 0 393,587
UPL Stryker [0] [249,200]
lethality 30 mm
cannon.........
4 STRYKER UPGRADE.... 152 550,000 152 550,000
5 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 638,781 0 -40,000 0 598,781
(MOD).............
Excess to need [0] [-40,000]
due to
termination of
subprogram.....
6 M109 FOV 0 25,756 0 25,756
MODIFICATIONS.....
7 PALADIN INTEGRATED 53 553,425 53 553,425
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
9 ASSAULT BRIDGE 0 2,821 0 2,821
(MOD).............
10 ASSAULT BREACHER 6 31,697 6 31,697
VEHICLE...........
11 M88 FOV MODS....... 0 4,500 0 4,500
12 JOINT ASSAULT 44 205,517 44 205,517
BRIDGE............
13 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 348,800 0 348,800
(MOD).............
14 ABRAMS UPGRADE 165 1,752,784 0 -35,000 165 1,717,784
PROGRAM...........
Early to need.. [0] [-35,000]
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
16 MULTI-ROLE ANTI- 0 19,420 0 19,420
ARMOR ANTI-
PERSONNEL WEAPON S
17 GUN AUTOMATIC 30MM 0 20,000 0 20,000
M230..............
19 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 14,907 0 14,907
20 XM320 GRENADE 0 191 0 191
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM).............
21 PRECISION SNIPER 0 7,977 0 7,977
RIFLE.............
22 COMPACT SEMI- 0 9,860 0 9,860
AUTOMATIC SNIPER
SYSTEM............
23 CARBINE............ 0 30,331 0 30,331
24 SMALL ARMS--FIRE 0 8,060 0 8,060
CONTROL...........
25 COMMON REMOTELY 0 24,007 0 24,007
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
26 HANDGUN............ 0 6,174 0 6,174
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
28 MK-19 GRENADE 0 3,737 0 3,737
MACHINE GUN MODS..
29 M777 MODS.......... 0 2,367 0 2,367
30 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 0 17,595 0 17,595
33 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 8,000 0 8,000
GUN MODS..........
34 SNIPER RIFLES 0 2,426 0 2,426
MODIFICATIONS.....
35 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 0 6,269 0 6,269
36 MORTAR MODIFICATION 0 1,693 0 1,693
37 MODIFICATIONS LESS 0 4,327 0 4,327
THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
38 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 3,066 0 3,066
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
39 PRODUCTION BASE 0 2,651 0 2,651
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 485 4,715,566 0 174,200 485 4,889,766
OF W&TCV, ARMY....

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 0 0 68,949 0 68,949
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [68,949]
to base funding
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 0 0 114,228 0 114,228
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [114,228]
to base funding
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 0 0 17,807 0 17,807
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [17,807]
to base funding
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 0 0 63,966 0 63,966
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [63,966]
to base funding
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 0 0 0 35,920 0 35,920
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [35,920]
to base funding
6 CTG, 25MM, ALL 0 0 0 8,990 0 8,990
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [8,990]
to base funding
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 0 0 68,813 0 68,813
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [68,813]
to base funding
8 CTG, 40MM, ALL 0 0 0 103,952 0 103,952
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [103,952]
to base funding
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 0 0 50,580 0 50,580
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [50,580]
to base funding
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 0 0 59,373 0 59,373
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [59,373]
to base funding
11 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 0 0 125,452 0 125,452
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [125,452]
to base funding
TANK AMMUNITION
12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 0 0 0 171,284 0 171,284
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES.........
Transfer back [0] [171,284]
to base funding
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY 0 0 0 44,675 0 44,675
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
Transfer back [0] [44,675]
to base funding
14 ARTILLERY 0 0 0 266,037 0 266,037
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
Transfer back [0] [266,037]
to base funding
15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 0 0 441 57,434 441 57,434
RANGE M982........
Transfer back [441] [57,434]
to base funding
16 ARTILLERY 0 0 0 271,602 0 271,602
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
Transfer back [0] [271,602]
to base funding
MINES
17 MINES & CLEARING 0 0 0 55,433 0 55,433
CHARGES, ALL TYPES
Transfer back [0] [55,433]
to base funding
ROCKETS
18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 0 0 74,878 0 74,878
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [74,878]
to base funding
19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 0 0 175,994 0 175,994
ALL TYPES.........
Transfer back [0] [175,994]
to base funding
OTHER AMMUNITION
20 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES. 0 0 0 7,595 0 7,595
Transfer back [0] [7,595]
to base funding
21 DEMOLITION 0 0 0 51,651 0 51,651
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [51,651]
to base funding
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 0 0 40,592 0 40,592
Transfer back [0] [40,592]
to base funding
23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 0 0 18,609 0 18,609
Transfer back [0] [18,609]
to base funding
24 SIMULATORS, ALL 0 0 0 16,054 0 16,054
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [16,054]
to base funding
MISCELLANEOUS
25 AMMO COMPONENTS, 0 0 0 5,261 0 5,261
ALL TYPES.........
Transfer back [0] [5,261]
to base funding
26 NON-LETHAL 0 0 0 715 0 715
AMMUNITION, ALL
TYPES.............
Transfer back [0] [715]
to base funding
27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 0 0 9,213 0 9,213
MILLION (AMMO)....
Transfer back [0] [9,213]
to base funding
28 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 0 0 0 10,044 0 10,044
EQUIPMENT.........
Transfer back [0] [10,044]
to base funding
29 FIRST DESTINATION 0 0 0 18,492 0 18,492
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)............
Transfer back [0] [18,492]
to base funding
30 CLOSEOUT 0 0 0 99 0 99
LIABILITIES.......
Transfer back [0] [99]
to base funding
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
31 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 474,511 0 474,511
FACILITIES........
Transfer back [0] [474,511]
to base funding
32 CONVENTIONAL 0 0 0 202,512 0 202,512
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION..
Transfer back [0] [202,512]
to base funding
33 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 0 0 0 3,833 0 3,833
Transfer back [0] [3,833]
to base funding
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 0 441 2,694,548 441 2,694,548
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 0 12,993 0 12,993
DOLLY SETS........
2 SEMITRAILERS, 0 102,386 0 102,386
FLATBED:..........
3 AMBULANCE, 4 0 127,271 0 127,271
LITTER, 5/4 TON,
4X4...............
4 GROUND MOBILITY 0 37,038 0 37,038
VEHICLES (GMV)....
6 JOINT LIGHT 2,530 996,007 0 -39,500 2,530 956,507
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
Army requested [0] [-4,500]
realignment....
Early to need.. [0] [-35,000]
7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T 0 10,838 0 10,838
(CCE).............
8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 0 72,057 0 72,057
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV)............
9 FIRETRUCKS & 0 28,048 0 28,048
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
10 FAMILY OF HEAVY 0 9,969 0 9,969
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
11 PLS ESP............ 0 6,280 0 6,280
12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 0 30,841 0 30,841
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
13 HMMWV 0 5,734 0 5,734
RECAPITALIZATION
PROGRAM...........
14 TACTICAL WHEELED 0 45,113 0 45,113
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
15 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 58,946 0 58,946
SVC EQUIP.........
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
17 HEAVY ARMORED 0 791 0 791
VEHICLE...........
18 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 1,416 0 1,416
VEHICLES..........
19 NONTACTICAL 0 29,891 0 29,891
VEHICLES, OTHER...
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
21 SIGNAL 0 153,933 0 153,933
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
22 TACTICAL NETWORK 0 387,439 0 387,439
TECHNOLOGY MOD IN
SVC...............
23 SITUATION 0 46,693 0 46,693
INFORMATION
TRANSPORT.........
25 JCSE EQUIPMENT 0 5,075 0 5,075
(USRDECOM)........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
28 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 101,189 0 101,189
WIDEBAND SATCOM
SYSTEMS...........
29 TRANSPORTABLE 0 77,141 0 77,141
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
30 SHF TERM........... 0 16,054 0 16,054
31 ASSURED 0 41,074 0 41,074
POSITIONING,
NAVIGATION AND
TIMING............
32 SMART-T (SPACE).... 0 10,515 0 10,515
33 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 0 11,800 0 11,800
GBS...............
34 ENROUTE MISSION 0 8,609 0 8,609
COMMAND (EMC).....
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
38 COE TACTICAL SERVER 0 77,533 0 77,533
INFRASTRUCTURE
(TSI).............
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
39 HANDHELD MANPACK 0 468,026 0 468,026
SMALL FORM FIT
(HMS).............
40 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 0 23,778 0 23,778
MIDS LVT(2).......
44 SPIDER FAMILY OF 0 10,930 0 10,930
NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR....
46 UNIFIED COMMAND 0 9,291 0 9,291
SUITE.............
47 COTS COMMUNICATIONS 0 55,630 0 55,630
EQUIPMENT.........
48 FAMILY OF MED COMM 0 16,590 0 16,590
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.....
49 ARMY COMMUNICATIONS 0 43,457 0 43,457
& ELECTRONICS.....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
51 CI AUTOMATION 0 10,470 0 10,470
ARCHITECTURE (MIP)
52 DEFENSE MILITARY 0 3,704 0 3,704
DECEPTION
INITIATIVE........
INFORMATION
SECURITY
53 FAMILY OF 0 1,000 0 1,000
BIOMETRICS........
54 INFORMATION SYSTEM 0 3,600 0 3,600
SECURITY PROGRAM-
ISSP..............
55 COMMUNICATIONS 0 160,899 0 160,899
SECURITY (COMSEC).
56 DEFENSIVE CYBER 0 61,962 0 61,962
OPERATIONS........
57 INSIDER THREAT 0 756 0 756
PROGRAM--UNIT
ACTIVITY MONITO...
58 PERSISTENT CYBER 0 3,000 0 3,000
TRAINING
ENVIRONMENT.......
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
59 BASE SUPPORT 0 31,770 0 31,770
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
60 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 159,009 0 159,009
61 EMERGENCY 0 4,854 0 4,854
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
62 HOME STATION 0 47,174 0 47,174
MISSION COMMAND
CENTERS (HSMCC)...
63 INSTALLATION INFO 0 297,994 0 297,994
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
66 JTT/CIBS-M (MIP)... 0 7,686 0 7,686
68 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 180,350 0 180,350
70 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 17,368 0 17,368
71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 59,052 0 59,052
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
77 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 0 5,400 0 5,400
MORTAR RADAR......
78 EW PLANNING & 0 7,568 0 7,568
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
(EWPMT)...........
79 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) 0 8,953 0 8,953
(MIP).............
81 MULTI-FUNCTION 0 6,420 0 6,420
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(MFEW) SYST.......
83 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 501 0 501
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
84 CI MODERNIZATION 0 121 0 121
(MIP).............
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
85 SENTINEL MODS...... 0 115,210 0 115,210
86 NIGHT VISION 0 236,604 0 236,604
DEVICES...........
88 SMALL TACTICAL 0 22,623 0 22,623
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
90 INDIRECT FIRE 0 29,127 0 29,127
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
91 FAMILY OF WEAPON 0 120,883 0 120,883
SIGHTS (FWS)......
94 JOINT BATTLE 0 265,667 0 265,667
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
95 JOINT EFFECTS 0 69,720 0 69,720
TARGETING SYSTEM
(JETS)............
96 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 6,044 0 6,044
(LLDR)............
97 COMPUTER 0 3,268 0 3,268
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32..............
98 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 13,199 0 13,199
SYSTEM............
99 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 10,000 0 10,000
SYSTEMS
MODIFICATIONS.....
100 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 0 16,416 13 62,500 13 78,916
UPL Retrofits [13] [62,500]
systems with
GaN tech for ER
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
102 FIRE SUPPORT C2 0 13,197 0 13,197
FAMILY............
103 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 0 24,730 0 24,730
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
104 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND 0 29,629 0 29,629
SYSTEM............
105 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 0 6,774 0 6,774
SUPPORT (LCSS)....
106 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 0 24,448 0 24,448
INITIALIZATION AND
SERVICE...........
107 MANEUVER CONTROL 0 260 0 260
SYSTEM (MCS)......
108 GLOBAL COMBAT 0 17,962 0 17,962
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).....
109 INTEGRATED 0 18,674 0 -18,674 0 0
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
Poor business [0] [-18,674]
process
reengineering..
110 RECONNAISSANCE AND 0 11,000 0 11,000
SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET....
111 MOD OF IN-SVC 0 7,317 0 7,317
EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
112 ARMY TRAINING 0 14,578 0 14,578
MODERNIZATION.....
113 AUTOMATED DATA 0 139,342 0 8,000 0 147,342
PROCESSING EQUIP..
JIOCEUR at RAF [0] [8,000]
Molesworth.....
114 GENERAL FUND 0 15,802 0 15,802
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYSTEMS
FAM...............
115 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 0 67,610 0 67,610
MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
116 CONTRACT WRITING 0 15,000 0 -15,000 0 0
SYSTEM............
Program [0] [-15,000]
duplication....
117 CSS COMMUNICATIONS. 0 24,700 0 24,700
118 RESERVE COMPONENT 0 27,879 0 27,879
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS)............
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
VISUAL SYS (A/V)
120 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 5,000 0 5,000
(SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT)........
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
122 BCT EMERGING 0 22,302 0 22,302
TECHNOLOGIES......
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 3,710 0 8,200 0 11,910
Transfer back [0] [8,200]
to base funding
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
126 CBRN DEFENSE....... 0 25,828 0 25,828
127 SMOKE & OBSCURANT 0 5,050 0 5,050
FAMILY: SOF (NON
AAO ITEM).........
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
128 TACTICAL BRIDGING.. 0 59,821 0 59,821
129 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 0 57,661 0 57,661
FLOAT-RIBBON......
130 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL 0 17,966 0 17,966
SET...............
131 COMMON BRIDGE 0 43,155 0 43,155
TRANSPORTER (CBT)
RECAP.............
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
132 HANDHELD STANDOFF 0 7,570 0 7,570
MINEFIELD
DETECTION SYS-HST.
133 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 37,025 0 37,025
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
135 HUSKY MOUNTED 0 83,082 0 83,082
DETECTION SYSTEM
(HMDS)............
136 ROBOTIC COMBAT 0 2,000 0 2,000
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)............
137 EOD ROBOTICS 0 23,115 0 23,115
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATION..
138 ROBOTICS AND 0 101,056 0 12,800 0 113,856
APPLIQUE SYSTEMS..
Army requested [0] [12,800]
realignment....
140 RENDER SAFE SETS 0 18,684 0 18,684
KITS OUTFITS......
142 FAMILY OF BOATS AND 0 8,245 0 8,245
MOTORS............
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
143 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 0 7,336 0 7,336
145 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 0 4,281 0 4,281
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
146 GROUND SOLDIER 0 111,955 0 111,955
SYSTEM............
147 MOBILE SOLDIER 0 31,364 0 31,364
POWER.............
149 FIELD FEEDING 0 1,673 0 1,673
EQUIPMENT.........
150 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 43,622 0 43,622
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
151 FAMILY OF ENGR 0 11,451 0 11,451
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
152 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 5,167 0 5,167
(ENG SPT).........
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
154 DISTRIBUTION 0 74,867 0 74,867
SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
& WATER...........
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
155 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 68,225 0 68,225
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
156 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 0 55,053 0 55,053
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
157 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 5,608 0 5,608
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
161 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 0 500 0 500
162 TRACTOR, FULL 0 4,835 0 4,835
TRACKED...........
163 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 0 23,936 0 23,936
164 HIGH MOBILITY 0 27,188 0 27,188
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
166 CONST EQUIP ESP.... 0 34,790 0 34,790
167 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 4,381 0 4,381
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP)............
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
168 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 0 35,194 0 35,194
169 MANEUVER SUPPORT 0 14,185 0 14,185
VESSEL (MSV)......
170 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 6,920 0 6,920
$5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
GENERATORS
171 GENERATORS AND 0 58,566 0 58,566
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
172 TACTICAL ELECTRIC 0 14,814 0 14,814
POWER
RECAPITALIZATION..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
173 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 0 14,864 0 14,864
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
174 COMBAT TRAINING 0 123,411 0 123,411
CENTERS SUPPORT...
175 TRAINING DEVICES, 0 220,707 0 220,707
NONSYSTEM.........
176 SYNTHETIC TRAINING 0 20,749 0 20,749
ENVIRONMENT (STE).
178 AVIATION COMBINED 0 4,840 0 4,840
ARMS TACTICAL
TRAINER...........
179 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 0 15,463 0 15,463
IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
TRAINING..........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
180 CALIBRATION SETS 0 3,030 0 3,030
EQUIPMENT.........
181 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 76,980 0 76,980
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
182 TEST EQUIPMENT 0 16,415 0 16,415
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
184 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 9,877 0 9,877
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
185 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 82,158 0 82,158
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
186 BASE LEVEL COMMON 0 15,340 0 15,340
EQUIPMENT.........
187 MODIFICATION OF IN- 0 50,458 0 50,458
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
189 BUILDING, PRE-FAB, 0 14,400 0 14,400
RELOCATABLE.......
190 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 0 9,821 0 9,821
FOR USER TESTING..
OPA2
192 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 0 9,757 0 9,757
TOTAL OTHER 2,530 7,443,101 13 18,326 2,543 7,461,427
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
1 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 24 1,748,934 24 1,748,934
HORNET............
2 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 0 55,128 0 55,128
HORNET AP.........
3 JOINT STRIKE 20 2,272,301 2 215,000 22 2,487,301
FIGHTER CV........
UPL USMC [2] [215,000]
additional
quantities.....
4 JOINT STRIKE 0 339,053 0 339,053
FIGHTER CV AP.....
5 JSF STOVL.......... 10 1,342,035 2 249,100 12 1,591,135
UPL USMC [2] [249,100]
additional
quantities.....
6 JSF STOVL AP....... 0 291,804 0 291,804
7 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 6 807,876 6 807,876
8 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 0 215,014 0 215,014
AP................
9 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 10 966,666 10 966,666
10 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT) 0 27,104 0 27,104
AP................
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 0 62,003 0 62,003
AH-1Z)............
13 MH-60R (MYP)....... 0 894 0 894
14 P-8A POSEIDON...... 6 1,206,701 6 1,206,701
16 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 4 744,484 4 744,484
17 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE AP 0 190,204 0 190,204
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
19 ADVANCED HELICOPTER 32 261,160 32 261,160
TRAINING SYSTEM...
OTHER AIRCRAFT
20 KC-130J............ 3 240,840 3 240,840
21 KC-130J AP......... 0 66,061 0 66,061
22 F-5................ 22 39,676 -22 -39,676 0 0
Program [-22] [-39,676]
cancellation...
23 MQ-4 TRITON........ 2 473,134 2 473,134
24 MQ-4 TRITON AP..... 0 20,139 0 20,139
25 MQ-8 UAV........... 0 44,957 0 44,957
26 STUASL0 UAV........ 0 43,819 0 43,819
28 VH-92A EXECUTIVE 6 658,067 6 658,067
HELO..............
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
29 AEA SYSTEMS........ 0 44,470 0 44,470
30 AV-8 SERIES........ 0 39,472 0 39,472
31 ADVERSARY.......... 0 3,415 0 3,415
32 F-18 SERIES........ 0 1,207,089 0 1,207,089
33 H-53 SERIES........ 0 68,385 0 68,385
34 MH-60 SERIES....... 0 149,797 0 149,797
35 H-1 SERIES......... 0 114,059 0 114,059
36 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 8,655 0 8,655
38 E-2 SERIES......... 0 117,059 0 117,059
39 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 0 5,616 0 5,616
40 C-2A............... 0 15,747 0 15,747
41 C-130 SERIES....... 0 122,671 0 122,671
42 FEWSG.............. 0 509 0 509
43 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 0 8,767 0 8,767
SERIES............
44 E-6 SERIES......... 0 169,827 0 169,827
45 EXECUTIVE 0 8,933 0 8,933
HELICOPTERS SERIES
47 T-45 SERIES........ 0 186,022 0 186,022
48 POWER PLANT CHANGES 0 16,136 0 16,136
49 JPATS SERIES....... 0 21,824 0 21,824
50 AVIATION LIFE 0 39,762 0 39,762
SUPPORT MODS......
51 COMMON ECM 0 162,839 0 162,839
EQUIPMENT.........
52 COMMON AVIONICS 0 102,107 0 102,107
CHANGES...........
53 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 2,100 0 2,100
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
54 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 41,437 0 41,437
55 P-8 SERIES......... 0 107,539 0 107,539
56 MAGTF EW FOR 0 26,536 0 26,536
AVIATION..........
57 MQ-8 SERIES........ 0 34,686 0 34,686
58 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 0 325,367 0 325,367
ACFT) OSPREY......
59 NEXT GENERATION 0 6,223 0 6,223
JAMMER (NGJ)......
60 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 0 65,585 0 65,585
61 F-35 CV SERIES..... 0 15,358 0 15,358
62 QRC................ 0 165,016 0 165,016
63 MQ-4 SERIES........ 0 27,994 0 27,994
64 RQ-21 SERIES....... 0 66,282 0 66,282
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
67 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 2,166,788 1 68,300 1 2,235,088
PARTS.............
F-35B spares... [0] [14,900]
F-35C spares... [0] [24,600]
UPL F-35B [1] [28,800]
engine.........
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIP & FACILITIES
68 COMMON GROUND 0 491,025 0 491,025
EQUIPMENT.........
69 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 71,335 0 71,335
FACILITIES........
70 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 41,086 0 41,086
72 SPECIAL SUPPORT 0 135,740 0 135,740
EQUIPMENT.........
73 FIRST DESTINATION 0 892 0 892
TRANSPORTATION....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 145 18,522,204 -17 492,724 128 19,014,928
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 0 0 0 1,177,251 0 1,177,251
Transfer back [0] [1,177,251]
to base funding
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 7,142 0 7,142
FACILITIES........
Transfer back [0] [7,142]
to base funding
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 0 0 90 330,430 90 330,430
Transfer back [90] [386,730]
to base funding
Unjustified [0] [-56,300]
tooling and
facilitization
costs..........
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 0 0 169 224,502 169 224,502
Transfer back [169] [224,502]
to base funding
5 SIDEWINDER......... 0 0 292 119,456 292 119,456
Transfer back [292] [119,456]
to base funding
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 0 0 125 404,523 125 404,523
Transfer back [125] [404,523]
to base funding
8 STANDARD MISSILE AP 0 0 0 96,085 0 96,085
Transfer back [0] [96,085]
to base funding
9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 0 0 750 118,466 750 118,466
II................
Transfer back [750] [118,466]
to base funding
10 RAM................ 0 0 120 106,765 120 106,765
Transfer back [120] [106,765]
to base funding
12 HELLFIRE........... 0 0 29 1,525 29 1,525
Transfer back [29] [1,525]
to base funding
15 AERIAL TARGETS..... 0 0 0 145,880 0 145,880
Transfer back [0] [145,880]
to base funding
16 DRONES AND DECOYS.. 0 0 30 20,000 30 20,000
Transfer back [30] [20,000]
to base funding
17 OTHER MISSILE 0 0 0 3,388 0 3,388
SUPPORT...........
Transfer back [0] [3,388]
to base funding
18 LRASM.............. 0 0 48 143,200 48 143,200
Transfer back [48] [143,200]
to base funding
19 LCS OTH MISSILE.... 0 0 8 18,137 8 18,137
Transfer back [18] [38,137]
to base funding
Unjustified [-10] [-20,000]
accelerated
acquisition
strategy.......
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
20 ESSM............... 0 0 60 128,059 60 128,059
Transfer back [60] [128,059]
to base funding
21 HARPOON MODS....... 0 0 0 25,447 0 25,447
Transfer back [0] [25,447]
to base funding
22 HARM MODS.......... 0 0 0 183,740 0 183,740
Transfer back [0] [183,740]
to base funding
23 STANDARD MISSILES 0 0 0 22,500 0 22,500
MODS..............
Transfer back [0] [22,500]
to base funding
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
24 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 1,958 0 1,958
FACILITIES........
Transfer back [0] [1,958]
to base funding
25 FLEET SATELLITE 0 0 0 67,380 0 67,380
COMM FOLLOW-ON....
Transfer back [0] [67,380]
to base funding
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
27 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 0 0 0 109,427 0 109,427
EQUIPMENT.........
Transfer back [0] [109,427]
to base funding
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
28 SSTD............... 0 0 0 5,561 0 5,561
Transfer back [0] [5,561]
to base funding
29 MK-48 TORPEDO...... 0 0 71 130,000 71 130,000
Transfer back [58] [114,000]
to base funding
UPL additional [13] [16,000]
quantites......
30 ASW TARGETS........ 0 0 0 15,095 0 15,095
Transfer back [0] [15,095]
to base funding
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
31 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 0 0 0 119,453 0 119,453
Transfer back [0] [119,453]
to base funding
32 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 0 0 0 39,508 0 39,508
MODS..............
Transfer back [0] [39,508]
to base funding
33 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 0 0 0 5,183 0 5,183
Transfer back [0] [5,183]
to base funding
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
34 TORPEDO SUPPORT 0 0 0 79,028 0 79,028
EQUIPMENT.........
Transfer back [0] [79,028]
to base funding
35 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 0 0 0 3,890 0 3,890
Transfer back [0] [3,890]
to base funding
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
36 FIRST DESTINATION 0 0 0 3,803 0 3,803
TRANSPORTATION....
Transfer back [0] [3,803]
to base funding
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
37 SMALL ARMS AND 0 0 0 14,797 0 14,797
WEAPONS...........
Transfer back [0] [14,797]
to base funding
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
38 CIWS MODS.......... 0 0 0 44,126 0 44,126
Transfer back [0] [44,126]
to base funding
39 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 0 0 0 44,980 0 44,980
Transfer back [0] [44,980]
to base funding
40 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 0 0 0 66,376 0 66,376
Transfer back [0] [66,376]
to base funding
41 LCS MODULE WEAPONS. 0 0 120 14,585 120 14,585
Transfer back [120] [14,585]
to base funding
43 AIRBORNE MINE 0 0 0 7,160 0 7,160
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS...........
Transfer back [0] [7,160]
to base funding
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
45 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 0 0 126,138 0 126,138
PARTS.............
Transfer back [0] [126,138]
to base funding
TOTAL WEAPONS 0 0 1,912 4,174,944 1,912 4,174,944
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 0 0 36,028 0 36,028
BOMBS.............
Transfer back [0] [36,028]
to base funding
2 JDAM............... 0 0 2,844 70,413 2,844 70,413
Transfer back [2,844] [70,413]
to base funding
3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 0 0 31,756 0 31,756
ALL TYPES.........
Transfer back [0] [31,756]
to base funding
4 MACHINE GUN 0 0 0 4,793 0 4,793
AMMUNITION........
Transfer back [0] [4,793]
to base funding
5 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 0 0 34,708 0 34,708
Transfer back [0] [34,708]
to base funding
6 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 0 0 45,738 0 45,738
ACTUATED DEVICES..
Transfer back [0] [45,738]
to base funding
7 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 0 0 77,301 0 77,301
COUNTERMEASURES...
Transfer back [0] [77,301]
to base funding
8 JATOS.............. 0 0 0 7,262 0 7,262
Transfer back [0] [7,262]
to base funding
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 0 0 0 22,594 0 22,594
AMMUNITION........
Transfer back [0] [22,594]
to base funding
10 INTERMEDIATE 0 0 0 37,193 0 37,193
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION........
Transfer back [0] [37,193]
to base funding
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 0 0 39,491 0 39,491
AMMUNITION........
Transfer back [0] [39,491]
to base funding
12 SMALL ARMS & 0 0 0 47,896 0 47,896
LANDING PARTY AMMO
Transfer back [0] [47,896]
to base funding
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 0 0 10,621 0 10,621
DEMOLITION........
Transfer back [0] [10,621]
to base funding
15 AMMUNITION LESS 0 0 0 2,386 0 2,386
THAN $5 MILLION...
Transfer back [0] [2,386]
to base funding
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
16 MORTARS............ 0 0 0 55,543 0 55,543
Transfer back [0] [55,543]
to base funding
17 DIRECT SUPPORT 0 0 0 131,765 0 131,765
MUNITIONS.........
Transfer back [0] [131,765]
to base funding
18 INFANTRY WEAPONS 0 0 0 78,056 0 78,056
AMMUNITION........
Transfer back [0] [78,056]
to base funding
19 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 0 0 40,048 0 40,048
MUNITIONS.........
Transfer back [0] [40,048]
to base funding
20 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 0 0 0 14,325 0 14,325
Transfer back [0] [14,325]
to base funding
21 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS 0 0 0 188,876 0 188,876
Transfer back [0] [188,876]
to base funding
22 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 0 0 4,521 0 4,521
MILLION...........
Transfer back [0] [4,521]
to base funding
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 0 2,844 981,314 2,844 981,314
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC

SHIPBUILDING AND
CONVERSION, NAVY
FLEET BALLISTIC
MISSILE SHIPS
1 OHIO REPLACEMENT 0 1,698,907 0 125,000 0 1,823,907
SUBMARINE AP......
Submarine [0] [125,000]
industrial base
expansion......
OTHER WARSHIPS
2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 1 2,347,000 -1 0 2,347,000
PROGRAM...........
CVN-81 [-1]
authorized in
NDAA 2019......
3 VIRGINIA CLASS 3 7,155,946 -1 -2,464,000 2 4,691,946
SUBMARINE.........
Restore VPM on [0] [522,100]
SSN-804........
SSN-812 full [-1] [-2,986,100]
funding early
to need........
4 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 2,769,552 0 1,500,000 0 4,269,552
SUBMARINE AP......
Future Virginia- [0] [1,500,000]
class
submarine(s)
with VPM.......
5 CVN REFUELING 1 647,926 0 -50,000 1 597,926
OVERHAULS.........
CVN-74 RCOH [0] [-50,000]
unjustified
cost growth....
6 CVN REFUELING 0 0 0 16,900 0 16,900
OVERHAULS AP......
Restore CVN-75 [0] [16,900]
RCOH...........
7 DDG 1000........... 0 155,944 0 155,944
8 DDG-51............. 3 5,099,295 0 -20,000 3 5,079,295
Available prior [0] [-20,000]
year funds.....
9 DDG-51 AP.......... 0 224,028 0 260,000 0 484,028
Accelerate LLTM [0] [260,000]
for FY21 Flight
III destroyers.
11 FFG-FRIGATE........ 1 1,281,177 1 1,281,177
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
12 LPD FLIGHT II...... 0 0 1 525,000 1 525,000
LPD-31 program [1] [277,900]
increase.......
Transfer from [0] [247,100]
SCN line 13....
13 LPD FLIGHT II AP... 0 247,100 0 -247,100 0 0
Transfer to SCN [0] [-247,100]
line 12........
15 LHA REPLACEMENT.... 0 0 1 650,000 1 650,000
LHA-9 program [1] [650,000]
increase.......
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
18 TAO FLEET OILER.... 2 981,215 2 981,215
19 TAO FLEET OILER AP. 0 73,000 0 73,000
20 TOWING, SALVAGE, 2 150,282 2 150,282
AND RESCUE SHIP
(ATS).............
22 LCU 1700........... 4 85,670 4 85,670
23 OUTFITTING......... 0 754,679 0 -50,000 0 704,679
Early to need [0] [-50,000]
and unjustified
cost growth....
25 SERVICE CRAFT...... 0 56,289 0 25,500 0 81,789
Accelerate YP- [0] [25,500]
703 Flight II..
28 COMPLETION OF PY 0 55,700 0 49,000 0 104,700
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS..........
UPL EPF-14 [0] [49,000]
conversion.....
29 SHIP TO SHORE 0 0 0 40,400 0 40,400
CONNECTOR AP......
Program [0] [40,400]
increase.......
TOTAL SHIPBUILDING 17 23,783,710 0 360,700 17 24,144,410
AND CONVERSION,
NAVY..............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
1 SURFACE POWER 0 14,490 0 14,490
EQUIPMENT.........
GENERATORS
2 SURFACE COMBATANT 0 31,583 0 19,000 0 50,583
HM&E..............
UPL DDG-51 [0] [19,000]
class HM&E
upgrades.......
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
3 OTHER NAVIGATION 0 77,404 0 77,404
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
4 SUB PERISCOPE, 0 160,803 0 160,803
IMAGING AND SUPT
EQUIP PROG........
5 DDG MOD............ 0 566,140 0 566,140
6 FIREFIGHTING 0 18,223 0 18,223
EQUIPMENT.........
7 COMMAND AND CONTROL 0 2,086 0 2,086
SWITCHBOARD.......
8 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 0 95,651 0 95,651
9 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 23,910 0 23,910
EQUIPMENT.........
10 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 44,895 0 44,895
EQUIPMENT.........
11 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 28,465 0 28,465
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
12 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 0 19,426 0 19,426
EQUIPMENT.........
13 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 0 26,290 0 26,290
14 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 0 46,945 0 46,945
EQUIPMENT.........
15 DDG 1000 CLASS 0 9,930 0 9,930
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
16 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 14,331 0 14,331
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
17 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 0 2,909 0 2,909
18 CG MODERNIZATION... 0 193,990 0 193,990
19 LCAC............... 0 3,392 0 3,392
20 UNDERWATER EOD 0 71,240 0 11,000 0 82,240
PROGRAMS..........
Program [0] [11,000]
increase for
four ExMCM
companies......
21 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 102,543 0 102,543
MILLION...........
22 CHEMICAL WARFARE 0 2,961 0 2,961
DETECTORS.........
23 SUBMARINE LIFE 0 6,635 0 6,635
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
24 REACTOR POWER UNITS 0 5,340 0 5,340
25 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 0 465,726 0 465,726
OCEAN ENGINEERING
26 DIVING AND SALVAGE 0 11,854 0 11,854
EQUIPMENT.........
SMALL BOATS
27 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 79,102 0 79,102
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
28 OPERATING FORCES 0 202,238 0 202,238
IPE...............
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
29 LCS COMMON MISSION 0 51,553 0 51,553
MODULES EQUIPMENT.
30 LCS MCM MISSION 0 197,129 0 -129,800 0 67,329
MODULES...........
Procurement [0] [-129,800]
ahead of
satisfactory
testing........
31 LCS ASW MISSION 0 27,754 0 27,754
MODULES...........
32 LCS SUW MISSION 0 26,566 0 26,566
MODULES...........
33 LCS IN-SERVICE 0 84,972 0 84,972
MODERNIZATION.....
34 SMALL & MEDIUM UUV. 0 40,547 0 -29,900 0 10,647
Knifefish [0] [-29,900]
procurement
ahead of
satisfactory
testing........
LOGISTIC SUPPORT
35 LSD MIDLIFE & 0 40,269 0 40,269
MODERNIZATION.....
SHIP SONARS
36 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 0 26,195 0 26,195
37 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 0 125,237 0 125,237
COMBAT SYSTEM.....
38 SSN ACOUSTIC 0 366,968 0 366,968
EQUIPMENT.........
39 UNDERSEA WARFARE 0 8,967 0 8,967
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
40 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 0 23,545 0 23,545
WARFARE SYSTEM....
41 SSTD............... 0 12,439 0 12,439
42 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 128,441 0 128,441
SYSTEM............
43 SURTASS............ 0 21,923 0 21,923
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
44 AN/SLQ-32.......... 0 420,154 0 -62,000 0 358,154
Early to need.. [0] [-62,000]
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
45 SHIPBOARD IW 0 194,758 0 8,000 0 202,758
EXPLOIT...........
UPL SSEE [0] [8,000]
expansion on
Flight I DDGs..
46 AUTOMATED 0 5,368 0 5,368
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS)......
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
47 COOPERATIVE 0 35,128 0 35,128
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY........
48 NAVAL TACTICAL 0 15,154 0 15,154
COMMAND SUPPORT
SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
49 ATDLS.............. 0 52,753 0 52,753
50 NAVY COMMAND AND 0 3,390 0 3,390
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NCCS)............
51 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 0 19,448 0 19,448
REPLACEMENT.......
52 SHALLOW WATER MCM.. 0 8,730 0 8,730
53 NAVSTAR GPS 0 32,674 0 32,674
RECEIVERS (SPACE).
54 AMERICAN FORCES 0 2,617 0 2,617
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE...........
55 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 7,973 0 7,973
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
56 ASHORE ATC 0 72,406 0 72,406
EQUIPMENT.........
57 AFLOAT ATC 0 67,410 0 67,410
EQUIPMENT.........
58 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 26,059 0 26,059
59 JOINT PRECISION 0 92,695 0 92,695
APPROACH AND
LANDING SYSTEM (..
60 NAVAL MISSION 0 15,296 0 15,296
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
61 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 0 36,226 0 36,226
SYSTEMS...........
62 DCGS-N............. 0 21,788 0 21,788
63 CANES.............. 0 426,654 0 426,654
64 RADIAC............. 0 6,450 0 6,450
65 CANES-INTELL....... 0 52,713 0 52,713
66 GPETE.............. 0 13,028 0 13,028
67 MASF............... 0 5,193 0 5,193
68 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 0 6,028 0 6,028
TEST FACILITY.....
69 EMI CONTROL 0 4,209 0 4,209
INSTRUMENTATION...
70 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 168,436 0 -23,800 0 144,636
MILLION...........
NGSSR early to [0] [-23,800]
need...........
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
71 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL 0 55,853 0 55,853
COMMUNICATIONS....
72 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 0 137,861 0 137,861
AUTOMATION........
73 COMMUNICATIONS 0 35,093 0 35,093
ITEMS UNDER $5M...
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
74 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 0 50,833 0 50,833
SUPPORT...........
75 SUBMARINE 0 69,643 0 69,643
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
76 SATELLITE 0 45,841 0 45,841
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
77 NAVY MULTIBAND 0 88,021 0 88,021
TERMINAL (NMT)....
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
78 JOINT 0 4,293 0 4,293
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
79 INFO SYSTEMS 0 166,540 0 166,540
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
80 MIO INTEL 0 968 0 968
EXPLOITATION TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
81 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 13,090 0 13,090
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
OTHER ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
83 COAST GUARD 0 61,370 0 61,370
EQUIPMENT.........
SONOBUOYS
85 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 260,644 0 50,000 0 310,644
TYPES.............
UPL Sonobuoy [0] [50,000]
increase.......
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
86 MINOTAUR........... 0 5,000 0 5,000
87 WEAPONS RANGE 0 101,843 0 101,843
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
88 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT 0 145,601 0 145,601
EQUIPMENT.........
89 ADVANCED ARRESTING 0 4,725 0 4,725
GEAR (AAG)........
90 METEOROLOGICAL 0 14,687 0 14,687
EQUIPMENT.........
92 LEGACY AIRBORNE MCM 0 19,250 0 19,250
93 LAMPS EQUIPMENT.... 0 792 0 792
94 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 55,415 0 55,415
EQUIPMENT.........
95 UMCS-UNMAN CARRIER 0 32,668 0 32,668
AVIATION(UCA)MISSI
ON CNTRL..........
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
96 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS 0 5,451 0 5,451
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
97 HARPOON SUPPORT 0 1,100 0 1,100
EQUIPMENT.........
98 SHIP MISSILE 0 228,104 0 228,104
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
99 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 0 78,593 0 78,593
EQUIPMENT.........
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
100 STRATEGIC MISSILE 0 280,510 0 280,510
SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
101 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 0 148,547 0 148,547
SYSTEMS...........
102 ASW SUPPORT 0 21,130 0 21,130
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
103 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 15,244 0 15,244
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
104 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 5,071 0 5,071
MILLION...........
OTHER EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
105 ANTI-SHIP MISSILE 0 41,962 0 41,962
DECOY SYSTEM......
106 SUBMARINE TRAINING 0 75,057 0 75,057
DEVICE MODS.......
107 SURFACE TRAINING 0 233,175 0 233,175
EQUIPMENT.........
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
108 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 4,562 0 4,562
VEHICLES..........
109 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 10,974 0 10,974
TRUCKS............
110 CONSTRUCTION & 0 43,191 0 43,191
MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
111 FIRE FIGHTING 0 21,142 0 21,142
EQUIPMENT.........
112 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 33,432 0 33,432
114 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 2,633 0 2,633
EQUIPMENT.........
115 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 53,467 0 53,467
MILLION...........
116 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 1,173 0 1,173
VEHICLES..........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT... 0 16,730 0 16,730
118 FIRST DESTINATION 0 5,389 0 5,389
TRANSPORTATION....
119 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 654,674 0 654,674
SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
TRAINING DEVICES
120 TRAINING SUPPORT 0 3,633 0 3,633
EQUIPMENT.........
121 TRAINING AND 0 97,636 0 97,636
EDUCATION
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
122 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 66,102 0 -6,323 0 59,779
EQUIPMENT.........
Program [0] [-6,323]
duplication....
123 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 3,633 0 3,633
EQUIPMENT.........
125 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 0 6,097 0 6,097
EQUIPMENT.........
126 OPERATING FORCES 0 16,905 0 16,905
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
127 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 0 30,146 0 30,146
128 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 21,986 0 21,986
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
129 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 160,046 0 160,046
EQUIPMENT.........
130 ENTERPRISE 0 56,899 0 56,899
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY........
OTHER
133 NEXT GENERATION 0 122,832 0 122,832
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 16,346 0 16,346
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
134 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 375,608 0 375,608
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 9,652,956 0 -163,823 0 9,489,133
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 AAV7A1 PIP......... 0 39,495 0 39,495
2 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT 56 317,935 56 317,935
VEHICLE 1.1.......
3 LAV PIP............ 0 60,734 0 60,734
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 0 25,065 0 25,065
TOWED HOWITZER....
5 ARTILLERY WEAPONS 0 100,002 0 100,002
SYSTEM............
6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 0 31,945 0 31,945
VEHICLES UNDER $5
MILLION...........
OTHER SUPPORT
7 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 22,760 0 22,760
GUIDED MISSILES
8 GROUND BASED AIR 0 175,998 0 175,998
DEFENSE...........
9 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE- 97 20,207 97 20,207
JAVELIN...........
10 FAMILY ANTI-ARMOR 0 21,913 0 21,913
WEAPON SYSTEMS
(FOAAWS)..........
11 ANTI-ARMOR MISSILE- 0 60,501 0 60,501
TOW...............
12 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 210 29,062 210 29,062
(GMLRS)...........
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
13 COMMON AVIATION 0 37,203 0 37,203
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
14 REPAIR AND TEST 0 55,156 0 55,156
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
15 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 4,945 0 4,945
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
16 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 112,124 0 112,124
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
17 AIR OPERATIONS C2 0 17,408 0 17,408
SYSTEMS...........
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
18 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 0 329 0 329
19 GROUND/AIR TASK 8 273,022 8 273,022
ORIENTED RADAR (G/
ATOR).............
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
21 GCSS-MC............ 0 4,484 0 4,484
22 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 35,488 0 35,488
23 INTELLIGENCE 0 56,896 0 56,896
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
25 UNMANNED AIR 0 34,711 0 34,711
SYSTEMS (INTEL)...
26 DCGS-MC............ 0 32,562 0 32,562
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
30 NEXT GENERATION 0 114,901 0 114,901
ENTERPRISE NETWORK
(NGEN)............
31 COMMON COMPUTER 0 51,094 0 51,094
RESOURCES.........
32 COMMAND POST 0 108,897 0 108,897
SYSTEMS...........
33 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 0 227,320 0 227,320
34 COMM SWITCHING & 0 31,685 0 31,685
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
35 COMM & ELEC 0 21,140 0 21,140
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT...........
36 CYBERSPACE 0 27,632 0 27,632
ACTIVITIES........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 5,535 0 5,535
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
37 COMMERCIAL CARGO 0 28,913 0 28,913
VEHICLES..........
TACTICAL VEHICLES
38 MOTOR TRANSPORT 0 19,234 0 19,234
MODIFICATIONS.....
39 JOINT LIGHT 1,398 558,107 1,398 558,107
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
40 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 0 2,693 0 2,693
TRAILERS..........
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
41 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 495 0 495
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
42 TACTICAL FUEL 0 52 0 52
SYSTEMS...........
43 POWER EQUIPMENT 0 22,441 0 22,441
ASSORTED..........
44 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 0 7,101 0 7,101
EQUIPMENT.........
45 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 44,700 0 44,700
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
46 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 15,404 0 15,404
EQUIPMENT.........
GENERAL PROPERTY
47 FIELD MEDICAL 0 2,898 0 2,898
EQUIPMENT.........
48 TRAINING DEVICES... 0 149,567 0 149,567
49 FAMILY OF 0 35,622 0 35,622
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
50 ULTRA-LIGHT 0 647 0 647
TACTICAL VEHICLE
(ULTV)............
OTHER SUPPORT
51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 10,956 0 10,956
MILLION...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
52 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 33,470 0 33,470
PARTS.............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 1,769 3,090,449 0 0 1,769 3,090,449
MARINE CORPS......

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35............... 48 4,274,359 12 1,090,000 60 5,364,359
UPL additional [12] [1,090,000]
quantities.....
2 F-35 AP............ 0 655,500 0 156,000 0 811,500
UPL increase... [0] [156,000]
3 F-15E.............. 8 1,050,000 0 -162,000 8 888,000
NRE cost on a [0] [-162,000]
non-
developmental A/
C..............
TACTICAL AIRLIFT
5 KC-46A MDAP........ 12 2,234,529 3 471,000 15 2,705,529
UPL additional [3] [471,000]
quantities.....
OTHER AIRLIFT
6 C-130J............. 0 12,156 0 12,156
8 MC-130J............ 8 871,207 8 871,207
9 MC-130J AP......... 0 40,000 0 40,000
HELICOPTERS
10 COMBAT RESCUE 12 884,235 12 884,235
HELICOPTER........
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
11 C-37A.............. 2 161,000 2 161,000
12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 4 2,767 4 2,767
C.................
OTHER AIRCRAFT
14 TARGET DRONES...... 37 130,837 37 130,837
15 COMPASS CALL....... 1 114,095 1 114,095
17 MQ-9............... 3 189,205 3 189,205
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
19 B-2A............... 0 9,582 0 9,582
20 B-1B............... 0 22,111 0 22,111
21 B-52............... 0 69,648 0 69,648
22 LARGE AIRCRAFT 0 43,758 0 43,758
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
23 A-10............... 0 132,069 0 132,069
24 E-11 BACN/HAG...... 0 70,027 0 70,027
25 F-15............... 0 481,073 0 -153,000 0 328,073
ADCP [0] [-75,100]
unnecessary due
to F-15X.......
IFF unnecessary [0] [-29,600]
due to F-15X...
Longerons [0] [-24,600]
unnecessary due
to F-15X.......
Radar [0] [-23,700]
unnecessary due
to F-15X.......
26 F-16............... 0 234,782 30 75,000 30 309,782
Additional [30] [75,000]
radars.........
28 F-22A.............. 0 323,597 0 323,597
30 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 0 343,590 0 343,590
31 F-15 EPAW.......... 0 149,047 0 -67,200 0 81,847
Not required [0] [-67,200]
because of F-
15X............
32 INCREMENT 3.2B..... 0 20,213 0 20,213
33 KC-46A MDAP........ 0 10,213 0 10,213
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
34 C-5................ 0 73,550 0 73,550
36 C-17A.............. 0 60,244 0 60,244
37 C-21............... 0 216 0 216
38 C-32A.............. 0 11,511 0 11,511
39 C-37A.............. 0 435 0 435
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
40 GLIDER MODS........ 0 138 0 138
41 T-6................ 0 11,826 0 11,826
42 T-1................ 0 26,787 0 26,787
43 T-38............... 0 37,341 0 37,341
OTHER AIRCRAFT
44 U-2 MODS........... 0 86,896 0 86,896
45 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 0 2,108 0 2,108
46 C-12............... 0 3,021 0 3,021
47 VC-25A MOD......... 0 48,624 0 48,624
48 C-40............... 0 256 0 256
49 C-130.............. 0 52,066 0 52,066
50 C-130J MODS........ 0 141,686 0 141,686
51 C-135.............. 0 124,491 0 124,491
53 COMPASS CALL....... 0 110,754 0 110,754
54 COMBAT FLIGHT 0 508 0 508
INSPECTION--CFIN..
55 RC-135............. 0 227,673 0 227,673
56 E-3................ 0 216,299 0 216,299
57 E-4................ 0 58,477 0 58,477
58 E-8................ 0 28,778 0 30,000 0 58,778
SATCOM radios.. [0] [30,000]
59 AIRBORNE WARNING 0 36,000 0 36,000
AND CNTRL SYS
(AWACS) 40/45.....
60 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 7,910 0 7,910
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
61 H-1................ 0 3,817 0 3,817
62 H-60............... 0 20,879 0 20,879
63 RQ-4 MODS.......... 0 1,704 0 1,704
64 HC/MC-130 0 51,482 0 51,482
MODIFICATIONS.....
65 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 50,098 0 50,098
66 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 383,594 0 383,594
68 CV-22 MODS......... 0 65,348 0 65,348
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
69 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 708,230 0 262,000 0 970,230
REPAIR PARTS......
F-35 spares.... [0] [96,000]
KC-46 spares... [0] [141,000]
RQ-4........... [0] [25,000]
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
72 AIRCRAFT 0 84,938 0 84,938
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
73 B-2A............... 0 1,403 0 1,403
74 B-2B............... 0 42,234 0 42,234
75 B-52............... 0 4,641 0 4,641
76 C-17A.............. 0 124,805 0 124,805
79 F-15............... 0 2,589 0 2,589
81 F-16............... 0 15,348 0 15,348
84 RQ-4 POST 0 47,246 0 47,246
PRODUCTION CHARGES
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
86 INDUSTRIAL 0 17,705 0 17,705
RESPONSIVENESS....
WAR CONSUMABLES
87 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 32,102 0 32,102
OTHER PRODUCTION
CHARGES
88 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,194,728 0 1,194,728
CHARGES...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 34,193 0 34,193
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 135 16,784,279 45 1,701,800 180 18,486,079
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
IC
1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 0 55,888 0 55,888
EQ-BALLISTIC......
TACTICAL
2 REPLAC EQUIP & WAR 0 9,100 0 9,100
CONSUMABLES.......
3 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 60 15,000 60 15,000
MUNITION..........
4 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 411 482,525 411 482,525
STANDOFF MISSILE..
6 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 355 160,408 355 160,408
7 AMRAAM............. 220 332,250 220 332,250
8 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 1,531 118,860 1,531 118,860
MISSILE...........
9 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 7,078 275,438 7,078 275,438
10 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 1,175 212,434 1,175 212,434
II................
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
11 INDUSTR'L 0 801 0 801
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION........
CLASS IV
12 ICBM FUZE MOD...... 6 5,000 6 5,000
13 ICBM FUZE MOD AP... 0 14,497 0 14,497
14 MM III 0 50,831 0 8,900 0 59,731
MODIFICATIONS.....
Air Force [0] [8,900]
requested
transfer.......
15 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 294 0 294
16 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 0 77,387 0 -8,900 0 68,487
MISSILE (ALCM)....
Air Force [0] [-8,900]
requested
transfer.......
MISSILE SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
18 MSL SPRS/REPAIR 0 1,910 0 1,910
PARTS (INITIAL)...
19 REPLEN SPARES/ 0 82,490 0 82,490
REPAIR PARTS......
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
23 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 144,553 0 144,553
PROGRAMS..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 849,521 0 849,521
TOTAL MISSILE 10,836 2,889,187 0 0 10,836 2,889,187
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

SPACE PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
1 ADVANCED EHF....... 0 31,894 0 31,894
2 AF SATELLITE COMM 0 56,298 0 56,298
SYSTEM............
4 COUNTERSPACE 0 5,700 0 5,700
SYSTEMS...........
5 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 34,020 0 34,020
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
7 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 3,244 0 3,244
TECH--SPACE.......
8 GPSIII FOLLOW ON... 1 414,625 1 414,625
9 GPS III SPACE 0 31,466 0 31,466
SEGMENT...........
12 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 0 32,031 0 32,031
(COMSEC)..........
13 MILSATCOM.......... 0 11,096 0 11,096
15 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 4 1,237,635 4 1,237,635
LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
16 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 0 233,952 0 233,952
17 NUDET DETECTION 0 7,432 0 7,432
SYSTEM............
18 ROCKET SYSTEMS 0 11,473 0 11,473
LAUNCH PROGRAM....
19 SPACE FENCE........ 0 71,784 0 71,784
20 SPACE MODS......... 0 106,330 0 106,330
21 SPACELIFT RANGE 0 118,140 0 118,140
SYSTEM SPACE......
SPARES
22 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 7,263 0 7,263
PARTS.............
TOTAL SPACE 5 2,414,383 0 0 5 2,414,383
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 0 0 0 133,268 0 133,268
Transfer back [0] [133,268]
to base funding
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 0 0 140,449 0 140,449
Transfer back [0] [140,449]
to base funding
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 0 0 29,313 0 29,313
Transfer back [0] [29,313]
to base funding
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 0 0 85,885 0 85,885
BOMBS.............
Transfer back [0] [85,885]
to base funding
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 0 0 37,000 1,066,224 37,000 1,066,224
MUNITION..........
Transfer back [37,000] [1,066,224]
to base funding
7 B61................ 0 0 533 80,773 533 80,773
Transfer back [533] [80,773]
to base funding
OTHER ITEMS
9 CAD/PAD............ 0 0 0 47,069 0 47,069
Transfer back [0] [47,069]
to base funding
10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 0 0 6,133 0 6,133
DISPOSAL (EOD)....
Transfer back [0] [6,133]
to base funding
11 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 0 0 533 0 533
PARTS.............
Transfer back [0] [533]
to base funding
12 MODIFICATIONS...... 0 0 0 1,291 0 1,291
Transfer back [0] [1,291]
to base funding
13 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 0 0 1,677 0 1,677
$5,000,000........
Transfer back [0] [1,677]
to base funding
FLARES
15 FLARES............. 0 0 0 36,116 0 36,116
Transfer back [0] [36,116]
to base funding
FUZES
16 FUZES.............. 0 0 0 1,734 0 1,734
Transfer back [0] [1,734]
to base funding
SMALL ARMS
17 SMALL ARMS......... 0 0 0 37,496 0 37,496
Transfer back [0] [37,496]
to base funding
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 0 37,533 1,667,961 37,533 1,667,961
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 15,238 0 15,238
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 0 34,616 0 34,616
VEHICLE...........
3 CAP VEHICLES....... 0 1,040 0 1,040
4 CARGO AND UTILITY 0 23,133 0 23,133
VEHICLES..........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 JOINT LIGHT 0 32,027 0 32,027
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
6 SECURITY AND 0 1,315 0 1,315
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
7 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 14,593 0 14,593
VEHICLES..........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
8 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 28,604 0 28,604
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
9 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 21,848 0 21,848
VEHICLES..........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV 0 2,925 0 2,925
AND CLEANING EQU..
11 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 55,776 0 55,776
SUPPORT VEHICLES..
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
13 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 0 91,461 0 91,461
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
14 INTERNATIONAL INTEL 0 11,386 0 11,386
TECH &
ARCHITECTURES.....
15 INTELLIGENCE 0 7,619 0 7,619
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
16 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 35,558 0 35,558
EQUIPMENT.........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
17 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 17,939 0 17,939
& LANDING SYS.....
19 BATTLE CONTROL 0 3,063 0 3,063
SYSTEM--FIXED.....
21 WEATHER OBSERVATION 0 31,447 0 31,447
FORECAST..........
22 STRATEGIC COMMAND 0 5,090 0 5,090
AND CONTROL.......
23 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 0 10,145 0 10,145
COMPLEX...........
24 MISSION PLANNING 0 14,508 0 14,508
SYSTEMS...........
26 INTEGRATED STRAT 0 9,901 0 9,901
PLAN & ANALY
NETWORK (ISPAN)...
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
27 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 26,933 0 26,933
TECHNOLOGY........
28 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 0 2,756 0 2,756
CONTROL SYS.......
29 BATTLEFIELD 0 48,478 0 48,478
AIRBORNE CONTROL
NODE (BACN).......
30 MOBILITY COMMAND 0 21,186 0 21,186
AND CONTROL.......
31 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 178,361 0 178,361
SECURITY SYSTEM...
32 COMBAT TRAINING 0 233,993 4 28,000 4 261,993
RANGES............
Joint threat [4] [28,000]
emitters.......
33 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 0 132,648 0 132,648
EMERGENCY COMM N..
34 WIDE AREA 0 80,818 0 80,818
SURVEILLANCE (WAS)
35 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 0 25,036 0 25,036
36 INTEGRATED 0 20,900 0 -20,900 0 0
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM............
Poor agile [0] [-20,900]
implementation.
37 GCSS-AF FOS........ 0 11,226 0 11,226
38 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 1,905 0 1,905
ACCOUNTING & MGT
SYS...............
39 MAINTENANCE REPAIR 0 1,912 0 1,912
& OVERHAUL
INITIATIVE........
40 THEATER BATTLE MGT 0 6,337 0 6,337
C2 SYSTEM.........
41 AIR & SPACE 0 33,243 0 33,243
OPERATIONS CENTER
(AOC).............
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
43 BASE INFORMATION 0 69,530 0 69,530
TRANSPT INFRAST
(BITI) WIRED......
44 AFNET.............. 0 147,063 0 147,063
45 JOINT 0 6,505 0 6,505
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
46 USCENTCOM.......... 0 20,190 0 20,190
47 USSTRATCOM......... 0 11,244 0 11,244
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
48 TACTICAL C-E 0 143,757 0 143,757
EQUIPMENT.........
50 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 0 15,402 0 15,402
51 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 0 3,211 0 3,211
EQUIPMENT.........
52 BASE COMM 0 43,123 0 43,123
INFRASTRUCTURE....
MODIFICATIONS
53 COMM ELECT MODS.... 0 14,500 0 14,500
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
54 PERSONAL SAFETY AND 0 50,634 0 50,634
RESCUE EQUIPMENT..
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
55 POWER CONDITIONING 0 11,000 0 11,000
EQUIPMENT.........
56 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 0 11,901 0 11,901
HANDLING EQUIP....
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
57 BASE PROCURED 0 23,963 0 23,963
EQUIPMENT.........
58 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 34,124 0 34,124
EQUIPMENT.........
59 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 26,439 0 26,439
60 FUELS SUPPORT 0 24,255 0 24,255
EQUIPMENT (FSE)...
61 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 38,986 0 38,986
AND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
63 DARP RC135......... 0 26,716 0 26,716
64 DCGS-AF............ 0 116,055 0 116,055
66 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 835,148 0 835,148
PROGRAM...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 17,637,807 0 655,000 0 18,292,807
Transfer back [0] [655,000]
to base funding
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
67 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 81,340 0 81,340
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 20,687,857 4 662,100 4 21,349,957
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............

PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 2,432 0 2,432
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
3 PERSONNEL 0 5,030 0 5,030
ADMINISTRATION....
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
8 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 3,318 0 1,400 0 4,718
SECURITY..........
Sharkseer [0] [1,400]
transfer.......
9 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 25,103 0 25,103
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 26,416 0 26,416
MILLION...........
12 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 17,574 0 17,574
SYSTEM NETWORK....
14 WHITE HOUSE 0 45,079 0 45,079
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY............
15 SENIOR LEADERSHIP 0 78,669 0 78,669
ENTERPRISE........
16 JOINT REGIONAL 0 88,000 0 88,000
SECURITY STACKS
(JRSS)............
17 JOINT SERVICE 0 107,907 0 107,907
PROVIDER..........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DLA
19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 8,122 0 8,122
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 10,961 0 10,961
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
21 AUTOMATION/ 0 1,320 0 1,320
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DPAA
22 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 32 1,504 32 1,504
DPAA..............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DSS
23 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 496 0 496
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
25 VEHICLES........... 0 211 0 211
26 OTHER MAJOR 0 11,521 0 11,521
EQUIPMENT.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
28 THAAD.............. 37 425,863 -37 -425,863 0 0
THAAD program [-37] [-425,863]
transfer to
Army...........
29 GROUND BASED 0 9,471 0 9,471
MIDCOURSE.........
31 AEGIS BMD.......... 37 600,773 37 600,773
32 AEGIS BMD AP....... 0 96,995 0 96,995
33 BMDS AN/TPY-2 0 10,046 0 10,046
RADARS............
34 ARROW 3 UPPER TIER 1 55,000 1 55,000
SYSTEMS...........
35 SHORT RANGE 1 50,000 1 50,000
BALLISTIC MISSILE
DEFENSE (SRBMD)...
36 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 1 25,659 1 25,659
III...............
37 IRON DOME.......... 1 95,000 1 95,000
38 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE 36 124,986 36 124,986
AND SOFTWARE......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
NSA
44 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 1,533 0 -1,400 0 133
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
Sharkseer [0] [-1,400]
transfer.......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
OSD
45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 43,705 0 43,705
OSD...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
TJS
46 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 6,905 0 6,905
TJS...............
47 MAJOR EQUIPMENT-- 0 1,458 0 1,458
TJS CYBER.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
WHS
49 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 507 0 507
WHS...............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 584,366 0 5,000 0 589,366
Transfer back [0] [5,000]
to base funding
AVIATION PROGRAMS
53 ROTARY WING 0 172,020 0 172,020
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.......
54 UNMANNED ISR....... 0 15,208 0 15,208
55 NON-STANDARD 0 32,310 0 32,310
AVIATION..........
56 U-28............... 0 10,898 0 10,898
57 MH-47 CHINOOK...... 0 173,812 0 173,812
58 CV-22 MODIFICATION. 0 17,256 0 17,256
59 MQ-9 UNMANNED 0 5,338 0 5,338
AERIAL VEHICLE....
60 PRECISION STRIKE 0 232,930 0 232,930
PACKAGE...........
61 AC/MC-130J......... 0 173,419 0 -8,800 0 164,619
RFCM schedule [0] [-8,800]
delay..........
62 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 0 15,582 0 15,582
SHIPBUILDING
63 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS. 0 58,991 0 58,991
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
64 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 0 279,992 0 279,992
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
65 INTELLIGENCE 0 100,641 0 100,641
SYSTEMS...........
66 DISTRIBUTED COMMON 0 12,522 0 12,522
GROUND/SURFACE
SYSTEMS...........
67 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 0 103,910 0 103,910
68 COMBATANT CRAFT 0 33,088 0 33,088
SYSTEMS...........
69 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 0 63,467 0 63,467
70 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 77,832 0 77,832
71 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 298,480 0 298,480
<$5M..............
72 COMBAT MISSION 0 19,702 0 19,702
REQUIREMENTS......
73 GLOBAL VIDEO 0 4,787 0 4,787
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES........
74 OPERATIONAL 0 8,175 0 8,175
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
75 OPERATIONAL 0 282,532 0 282,532
ENHANCEMENTS......
CBDP
76 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL 0 162,406 0 162,406
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.........
77 CB PROTECTION & 0 188,188 0 188,188
HAZARD MITIGATION.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 146 5,109,416 -37 -429,663 109 4,679,753
DEFENSE-WIDE......

JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
1 JOINT URGENT 0 99,200 0 99,200
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
TOTAL JOINT URGENT 0 99,200 0 0 0 99,200
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............

TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 16,232 118,888,737 57,162 16,182,628 73,394 135,071,365
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
3 MQ-1 UAV.......... 6 54,000 0 6 54,000
ROTARY
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER.. 1 25,000 0 1 25,000
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
21 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 80,260 0 0 80,260
RECON (MIP)......
24 GRCS SEMA MODS 0 750 0 0 750
(MIP)............
26 EMARSS SEMA MODS 0 22,180 0 0 22,180
(MIP)............
27 UTILITY/CARGO 0 8,362 0 0 8,362
AIRPLANE MODS....
29 NETWORK AND 0 10 0 0 10
MISSION PLAN.....
31 DEGRADED VISUAL 0 49,450 0 0 49,450
ENVIRONMENT......
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
37 CMWS.............. 0 130,219 0 0 130,219
38 COMMON INFRARED 0 9,310 0 0 9,310
COUNTERMEASURES
(CIRCM)..........
OTHER SUPPORT
45 LAUNCHER GUIDED 12 2,000 0 12 2,000
MISSILE: LONGBOW
HELLFIRE XM2.....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 18 381,541 0 0 18 381,541
PROCUREMENT, ARMY

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
1 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 0 113,857 0 -113,857 0 0
AND TEST
PROCUREMENT......
Transfer back [0] [-113,857]
to base
funding.......
2 M-SHORAD-- 44 262,100 -17 -103,800 27 158,300
PROCUREMENT......
Transfer back [-17] [-103,800]
to base
funding.......
3 MSE MISSILE....... 147 736,541 -138 -698,603 9 37,938
Transfer back [-138] [-698,603]
to base
funding.......
4 INDIRECT FIRE 0 9,337 0 -9,337 0 0
PROTECTION
CAPABILITY INC 2-
I................
Transfer back [0] [-9,337]
to base
funding.......
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
6 HELLFIRE SYS 5,112 429,549 -1870 -193,284 3,242 236,265
SUMMARY..........
Transfer back [-1,870] [-193,284]
to base
funding.......
7 JOINT AIR-TO- 609 233,353 -609 -233,353 0 0
GROUND MSLS
(JAGM)...........
Transfer back [-609] [-233,353]
to base
funding.......
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 697 142,794 -672 -138,405 25 4,389
SYSTEM SUMMARY...
Transfer back [-672] [-138,405]
to base
funding.......
9 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,460 114,340 -1460 -114,340 0 0
SUMMARY..........
Transfer back [-1,460] [-114,340]
to base
funding.......
10 TOW 2 SYSTEM 0 10,500 0 -10,500 0 0
SUMMARY AP.......
Transfer back [0] [-10,500]
to base
funding.......
11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 9,853 1,228,809 -6489 -797,213 3,364 431,596
(GMLRS)..........
Transfer back [-6,489] [-797,213]
to base
funding.......
12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 2,982 27,555 -2982 -27,555 0 0
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)...........
Transfer back [-2,982] [-27,555]
to base
funding.......
14 ARMY TACTICAL MSL 240 340,612 -146 -209,842 94 130,770
SYS (ATACMS)--SYS
SUM..............
Transfer back [-146] [-209,842]
to base
funding.......
15 LETHAL MINIATURE 1,835 83,300 0 1,835 83,300
AERIAL MISSILE
SYSTEM (LMAMS....
MODIFICATIONS
16 PATRIOT MODS...... 0 279,464 0 -279,464 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-279,464]
to base
funding.......
17 ATACMS MODS....... 0 85,320 0 -85,320 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-85,320]
to base
funding.......
18 GMLRS MOD......... 0 5,094 0 -5,094 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-5,094]
to base
funding.......
19 STINGER MODS...... 0 89,115 0 -81,615 0 7,500
Transfer back [0] [-81,615]
to base
funding.......
20 AVENGER MODS...... 0 14,107 0 -14,107 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-14,107]
to base
funding.......
21 ITAS/TOW MODS..... 0 3,469 0 -3,469 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-3,469]
to base
funding.......
22 MLRS MODS......... 0 387,019 0 -39,019 0 348,000
Transfer back [0] [-39,019]
to base
funding.......
23 HIMARS 0 12,483 0 -12,483 0 0
MODIFICATIONS....
Transfer back [0] [-12,483]
to base
funding.......
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
24 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 26,444 0 -26,444 0 0
PARTS............
Transfer back [0] [-26,444]
to base
funding.......
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
& FACILITIES
25 AIR DEFENSE 0 10,593 0 -10,593 0 0
TARGETS..........
Transfer back [0] [-10,593]
to base
funding.......
TOTAL MISSILE 22,979 4,645,755 -14,383 -3,207,697 8,596 1,438,058
PROCUREMENT, ARMY

PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
2 ARMORED MULTI 66 221,638 0 66 221,638
PURPOSE VEHICLE
(AMPV)...........
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
3 STRYKER (MOD)..... 0 4,100 0 0 4,100
8 IMPROVED RECOVERY 16 80,146 0 16 80,146
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES)........
13 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 13,100 0 0 13,100
(MOD)............
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
15 M240 MEDIUM 0 900 0 0 900
MACHINE GUN
(7.62MM).........
16 MULTI-ROLE ANTI- 0 2,400 0 0 2,400
ARMOR ANTI-
PERSONNEL WEAPON
S................
19 MORTAR SYSTEMS.... 0 18,941 0 0 18,941
20 XM320 GRENADE 0 526 0 0 526
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM)............
23 CARBINE........... 0 1,183 0 0 1,183
25 COMMON REMOTELY 0 4,182 0 0 4,182
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION..........
26 HANDGUN........... 0 248 0 0 248
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
31 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 0 6,090 0 0 6,090
GUN MODS.........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 82 353,454 0 0 82 353,454
OF W&TCV, ARMY...

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 69,516 0 -68,949 0 567
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-68,949]
to base
funding.......
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 114,268 0 -114,228 0 40
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-114,228]
to base
funding.......
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 17,824 0 -17,807 0 17
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-17,807]
to base
funding.......
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 64,155 0 -63,966 0 189
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-63,966]
to base
funding.......
5 CTG, 20MM, ALL 0 35,920 0 -35,920 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-35,920]
to base
funding.......
6 CTG, 25MM, ALL 0 8,990 0 -8,990 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-8,990]
to base
funding.......
7 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 93,713 0 -68,813 0 24,900
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-68,813]
to base
funding.......
8 CTG, 40MM, ALL 0 103,952 0 -103,952 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-103,952]
to base
funding.......
MORTAR AMMUNITION
9 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 50,580 0 -50,580 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-50,580]
to base
funding.......
10 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 59,373 0 -59,373 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-59,373]
to base
funding.......
11 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 125,452 0 -125,452 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-125,452]
to base
funding.......
TANK AMMUNITION
12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 0 171,284 0 -171,284 0 0
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES........
Transfer back [0] [-171,284]
to base
funding.......
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
13 ARTILLERY 0 44,675 0 -44,675 0 0
CARTRIDGES, 75MM
& 105MM, ALL
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-44,675]
to base
funding.......
14 ARTILLERY 0 266,037 0 -266,037 0 0
PROJECTILE,
155MM, ALL TYPES.
Transfer back [0] [-266,037]
to base
funding.......
15 PROJ 155MM 745 93,486 -441 -57,434 304 36,052
EXTENDED RANGE
M982.............
Transfer back [-441] [-57,434]
to base
funding.......
16 ARTILLERY 0 278,873 0 -271,602 0 7,271
PROPELLANTS,
FUZES AND
PRIMERS, ALL.....
Transfer back [0] [-271,602]
to base
funding.......
MINES
17 MINES & CLEARING 0 55,433 0 -55,433 0 0
CHARGES, ALL
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-55,433]
to base
funding.......
ROCKETS
18 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 75,054 0 -74,878 0 176
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-74,878]
to base
funding.......
19 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 255,453 0 -175,994 0 79,459
ALL TYPES........
Transfer back [0] [-175,994]
to base
funding.......
OTHER AMMUNITION
20 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES 0 7,595 0 -7,595 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-7,595]
to base
funding.......
21 DEMOLITION 0 51,651 0 -51,651 0 0
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-51,651]
to base
funding.......
22 GRENADES, ALL 0 40,592 0 -40,592 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-40,592]
to base
funding.......
23 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES 0 18,609 0 -18,609 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-18,609]
to base
funding.......
24 SIMULATORS, ALL 0 16,054 0 -16,054 0 0
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-16,054]
to base
funding.......
MISCELLANEOUS
25 AMMO COMPONENTS, 0 5,261 0 -5,261 0 0
ALL TYPES........
Transfer back [0] [-5,261]
to base
funding.......
26 NON-LETHAL 0 715 0 -715 0 0
AMMUNITION, ALL
TYPES............
Transfer back [0] [-715]
to base
funding.......
27 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 9,224 0 -9,213 0 11
MILLION (AMMO)...
Transfer back [0] [-9,213]
to base
funding.......
28 AMMUNITION 0 10,044 0 -10,044 0 0
PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT........
Transfer back [0] [-10,044]
to base
funding.......
29 FIRST DESTINATION 0 18,492 0 -18,492 0 0
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)...........
Transfer back [0] [-18,492]
to base
funding.......
30 CLOSEOUT 0 99 0 -99 0 0
LIABILITIES......
Transfer back [0] [-99]
to base
funding.......
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
31 INDUSTRIAL 0 474,511 0 -474,511 0 0
FACILITIES.......
Transfer back [0] [-474,511]
to base
funding.......
32 CONVENTIONAL 0 202,512 0 -202,512 0 0
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION.
Transfer back [0] [-202,512]
to base
funding.......
33 ARMS INITIATIVE... 0 3,833 0 -3,833 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-3,833]
to base
funding.......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 745 2,843,230 -441 -2,694,548 304 148,682
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY.............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
10 FAMILY OF HEAVY 0 26,917 0 0 26,917
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)...........
11 PLS ESP........... 0 16,941 0 0 16,941
12 HVY EXPANDED 0 62,734 0 0 62,734
MOBILE TACTICAL
TRUCK EXT SERV...
14 TACTICAL WHEELED 0 50,000 0 0 50,000
VEHICLE
PROTECTION KITS..
15 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 28,000 0 0 28,000
SVC EQUIP........
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
22 TACTICAL NETWORK 0 40,000 0 0 40,000
TECHNOLOGY MOD IN
SVC..............
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
29 TRANSPORTABLE 0 6,930 0 0 6,930
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS...
31 ASSURED 0 11,778 0 0 11,778
POSITIONING,
NAVIGATION AND
TIMING...........
32 SMART-T (SPACE)... 0 825 0 0 825
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
40 RADIO TERMINAL 0 350 0 0 350
SET, MIDS LVT(2).
47 COTS 0 20,400 0 0 20,400
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT........
48 FAMILY OF MED COMM 0 1,231 0 0 1,231
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
51 CI AUTOMATION 0 6,200 0 0 6,200
ARCHITECTURE
(MIP)............
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
59 BASE SUPPORT 0 20,482 0 0 20,482
COMMUNICATIONS...
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
60 INFORMATION 0 55,800 0 0 55,800
SYSTEMS..........
63 INSTALLATION INFO 0 75,820 0 0 75,820
INFRASTRUCTURE
MOD PROGRAM......
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
68 DCGS-A (MIP)...... 0 38,613 0 0 38,613
70 TROJAN (MIP)...... 0 1,337 0 0 1,337
71 MOD OF IN-SVC 0 2,051 0 0 2,051
EQUIP (INTEL SPT)
(MIP)............
75 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL 0 1,800 0 0 1,800
COLLECTION
DEVICES (MIP)....
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW)
82 FAMILY OF 0 71,493 0 0 71,493
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE CAP.
(MIP)............
83 COUNTERINTELLIGENC 0 6,917 0 0 6,917
E/SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES..
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
85 SENTINEL MODS..... 0 20,000 0 0 20,000
86 NIGHT VISION 0 3,676 0 0 3,676
DEVICES..........
94 JOINT BATTLE 0 25,568 0 0 25,568
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)..........
97 COMPUTER 0 570 0 0 570
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32.............
98 MORTAR FIRE 0 15,975 0 0 15,975
CONTROL SYSTEM...
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
103 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 0 14,331 0 0 14,331
PLANNING &
CONTROL SYS......
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
112 ARMY TRAINING 0 6,014 0 0 6,014
MODERNIZATION....
113 AUTOMATED DATA 0 32,700 0 0 32,700
PROCESSING EQUIP.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
CLASSIFIED 0 8,200 0 -8,200 0 0
PROGRAMS.........
Transfer back [0] [-8,200]
to base
funding.......
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
124 FAMILY OF NON- 0 25,480 0 0 25,480
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)...........
125 BASE DEFENSE 0 47,110 0 0 47,110
SYSTEMS (BDS)....
126 CBRN DEFENSE...... 0 18,711 0 0 18,711
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
128 TACTICAL BRIDGING. 0 4,884 0 0 4,884
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
133 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 4,500 0 0 4,500
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS).......
135 HUSKY MOUNTED 0 34,253 0 0 34,253
DETECTION SYSTEM
(HMDS)...........
136 ROBOTIC COMBAT 0 3,300 0 0 3,300
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)...........
140 RENDER SAFE SETS 0 84,000 0 0 84,000
KITS OUTFITS.....
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
143 HEATERS AND ECU'S. 0 8 0 0 8
145 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 0 5,101 0 0 5,101
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)...........
146 GROUND SOLDIER 0 1,760 0 0 1,760
SYSTEM...........
148 FORCE PROVIDER.... 0 56,400 0 0 56,400
150 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 2,040 0 0 2,040
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
PETROLEUM
EQUIPMENT
154 DISTRIBUTION 0 13,986 0 0 13,986
SYSTEMS,
PETROLEUM & WATER
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
155 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 2,735 0 0 2,735
MEDICAL..........
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
159 SCRAPERS, 0 4,669 0 0 4,669
EARTHMOVING......
160 LOADERS........... 0 380 0 0 380
162 TRACTOR, FULL 0 8,225 0 0 8,225
TRACKED..........
164 HIGH MOBILITY 0 3,000 0 0 3,000
ENGINEER
EXCAVATOR (HMEE).
166 CONST EQUIP ESP... 0 3,870 0 0 3,870
167 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 350 0 0 350
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP)...........
GENERATORS
171 GENERATORS AND 0 2,436 0 0 2,436
ASSOCIATED EQUIP.
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
173 FAMILY OF 0 5,152 0 0 5,152
FORKLIFTS........
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
175 TRAINING DEVICES, 0 2,106 0 0 2,106
NONSYSTEM........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
181 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 1,395 0 0 1,395
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
184 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 24,122 0 0 24,122
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT........
185 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 10,016 0 0 10,016
SYSTEMS (OPA3)...
187 MODIFICATION OF IN- 0 33,354 0 0 33,354
SVC EQUIPMENT
(OPA-3)..........
189 BUILDING, PRE-FAB, 0 62,654 0 0 62,654
RELOCATABLE......
TOTAL OTHER 0 1,139,650 0 -8,200 0 1,131,450
PROCUREMENT, ARMY

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER AIRCRAFT
26 STUASL0 UAV....... 0 7,921 0 0 7,921
27 MQ-9A REAPER...... 3 77,000 0 3 77,000
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
36 EP-3 SERIES....... 0 5,488 0 0 5,488
46 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 3,498 0 0 3,498
AIRCRAFT.........
51 COMMON ECM 0 3,406 0 0 3,406
EQUIPMENT........
53 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 3,274 0 0 3,274
WEAPON SYSTEM....
62 QRC............... 0 18,458 0 0 18,458
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 3 119,045 0 0 3 119,045
PROCUREMENT, NAVY

WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS... 0 1,177,251 0 -1,177,251 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-1,177,251]
to base
funding.......
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
& FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 0 7,142 0 -7,142 0 0
FACILITIES.......
Transfer back [0] [-7,142]
to base
funding.......
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK.......... 90 386,730 -90 -386,730 0 0
Transfer back [-90] [-386,730]
to base
funding.......
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............ 169 224,502 -169 -224,502 0 0
Transfer back [-169] [-224,502]
to base
funding.......
5 SIDEWINDER........ 292 119,456 -292 -119,456 0 0
Transfer back [-292] [-119,456]
to base
funding.......
7 STANDARD MISSILE.. 125 404,523 -125 -404,523 0 0
Transfer back [-125] [-404,523]
to base
funding.......
8 STANDARD MISSILE 0 96,085 0 -96,085 0 0
AP...............
Transfer back [0] [-96,085]
to base
funding.......
9 SMALL DIAMETER 750 118,466 -750 -118,466 0 0
BOMB II..........
Transfer back [-750] [-118,466]
to base
funding.......
10 RAM............... 120 106,765 -120 -106,765 0 0
Transfer back [-120] [-106,765]
to base
funding.......
11 JOINT AIR GROUND 382 90,966 0 382 90,966
MISSILE (JAGM)...
12 HELLFIRE.......... 29 1,525 -29 -1,525 0 0
Transfer back [-29] [-1,525]
to base
funding.......
15 AERIAL TARGETS.... 0 152,380 0 -145,880 0 6,500
Transfer back [0] [-145,880]
to base
funding.......
16 DRONES AND DECOYS. 30 20,000 -30 -20,000 0 0
Transfer back [-30] [-20,000]
to base
funding.......
17 OTHER MISSILE 0 3,388 0 -3,388 0 0
SUPPORT..........
Transfer back [0] [-3,388]
to base
funding.......
18 LRASM............. 48 143,200 -48 -143,200 0 0
Transfer back [-48] [-143,200]
to base
funding.......
19 LCS OTH MISSILE... 18 38,137 -18 -38,137 0 0
Transfer back [-18] [-38,137]
to base
funding.......
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
20 ESSM.............. 60 128,059 -60 -128,059 0 0
Transfer back [-60] [-128,059]
to base
funding.......
21 HARPOON MODS...... 0 25,447 0 -25,447 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-25,447]
to base
funding.......
22 HARM MODS......... 0 183,740 0 -183,740 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-183,740]
to base
funding.......
23 STANDARD MISSILES 0 22,500 0 -22,500 0 0
MODS.............
Transfer back [0] [-22,500]
to base
funding.......
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
& FACILITIES
24 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 0 1,958 0 -1,958 0 0
FACILITIES.......
Transfer back [0] [-1,958]
to base
funding.......
25 FLEET SATELLITE 0 67,380 0 -67,380 0 0
COMM FOLLOW-ON...
Transfer back [0] [-67,380]
to base
funding.......
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
27 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 0 109,427 0 -109,427 0 0
EQUIPMENT........
Transfer back [0] [-109,427]
to base
funding.......
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
28 SSTD.............. 0 5,561 0 -5,561 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-5,561]
to base
funding.......
29 MK-48 TORPEDO..... 58 114,000 -58 -114,000 0 0
Transfer back [-58] [-114,000]
to base
funding.......
30 ASW TARGETS....... 0 15,095 0 -15,095 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-15,095]
to base
funding.......
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
31 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS 0 119,453 0 -119,453 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-119,453]
to base
funding.......
32 MK-48 TORPEDO 0 39,508 0 -39,508 0 0
ADCAP MODS.......
Transfer back [0] [-39,508]
to base
funding.......
33 QUICKSTRIKE MINE.. 0 5,183 0 -5,183 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-5,183]
to base
funding.......
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
34 TORPEDO SUPPORT 0 79,028 0 -79,028 0 0
EQUIPMENT........
Transfer back [0] [-79,028]
to base
funding.......
35 ASW RANGE SUPPORT. 0 3,890 0 -3,890 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-3,890]
to base
funding.......
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
36 FIRST DESTINATION 0 3,803 0 -3,803 0 0
TRANSPORTATION...
Transfer back [0] [-3,803]
to base
funding.......
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
37 SMALL ARMS AND 0 14,797 0 -14,797 0 0
WEAPONS..........
Transfer back [0] [-14,797]
to base
funding.......
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
38 CIWS MODS......... 0 44,126 0 -44,126 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-44,126]
to base
funding.......
39 COAST GUARD 0 44,980 0 -44,980 0 0
WEAPONS..........
Transfer back [0] [-44,980]
to base
funding.......
40 GUN MOUNT MODS.... 0 66,376 0 -66,376 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-66,376]
to base
funding.......
41 LCS MODULE WEAPONS 120 14,585 -120 -14,585 0 0
Transfer back [-120] [-14,585]
to base
funding.......
43 AIRBORNE MINE 0 7,160 0 -7,160 0 0
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS..........
Transfer back [0] [-7,160]
to base
funding.......
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
45 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 126,138 0 -126,138 0 0
PARTS............
Transfer back [0] [-126,138]
to base
funding.......
TOTAL WEAPONS 2,291 4,332,710 -1,909 -4,235,244 382 97,466
PROCUREMENT, NAVY

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 63,006 0 -36,028 0 26,978
BOMBS............
Transfer back [0] [-36,028]
to base
funding.......
2 JDAM.............. 3,388 82,676 -2844 -70,413 544 12,263
Transfer back [-2,844] [-70,413]
to base
funding.......
3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 76,776 0 -31,756 0 45,020
ALL TYPES........
Transfer back [0] [-31,756]
to base
funding.......
4 MACHINE GUN 0 38,370 0 -4,793 0 33,577
AMMUNITION.......
Transfer back [0] [-4,793]
to base
funding.......
5 PRACTICE BOMBS.... 0 46,611 0 -34,708 0 11,903
Transfer back [0] [-34,708]
to base
funding.......
6 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 60,819 0 -45,738 0 15,081
ACTUATED DEVICES.
Transfer back [0] [-45,738]
to base
funding.......
7 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 94,212 0 -77,301 0 16,911
COUNTERMEASURES..
Transfer back [0] [-77,301]
to base
funding.......
8 JATOS............. 0 7,262 0 -7,262 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-7,262]
to base
funding.......
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 0 22,594 0 -22,594 0 0
AMMUNITION.......
Transfer back [0] [-22,594]
to base
funding.......
10 INTERMEDIATE 0 37,193 0 -37,193 0 0
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION.......
Transfer back [0] [-37,193]
to base
funding.......
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 42,753 0 -39,491 0 3,262
AMMUNITION.......
Transfer back [0] [-39,491]
to base
funding.......
12 SMALL ARMS & 0 48,906 0 -47,896 0 1,010
LANDING PARTY
AMMO.............
Transfer back [0] [-47,896]
to base
funding.......
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 11,158 0 -10,621 0 537
DEMOLITION.......
Transfer back [0] [-10,621]
to base
funding.......
15 AMMUNITION LESS 0 2,386 0 -2,386 0 0
THAN $5 MILLION..
Transfer back [0] [-2,386]
to base
funding.......
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
16 MORTARS........... 0 57,473 0 -55,543 0 1,930
Transfer back [0] [-55,543]
to base
funding.......
17 DIRECT SUPPORT 0 132,937 0 -131,765 0 1,172
MUNITIONS........
Transfer back [0] [-131,765]
to base
funding.......
18 INFANTRY WEAPONS 0 80,214 0 -78,056 0 2,158
AMMUNITION.......
Transfer back [0] [-78,056]
to base
funding.......
19 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 41,013 0 -40,048 0 965
MUNITIONS........
Transfer back [0] [-40,048]
to base
funding.......
20 AMMO MODERNIZATION 0 14,325 0 -14,325 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-14,325]
to base
funding.......
21 ARTILLERY 0 220,923 0 -188,876 0 32,047
MUNITIONS........
Transfer back [0] [-188,876]
to base
funding.......
22 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 4,521 0 -4,521 0 0
MILLION..........
Transfer back [0] [-4,521]
to base
funding.......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 3,388 1,186,128 -2,844 -981,314 544 204,814
OF AMMO, NAVY &
MC...............

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
20 UNDERWATER EOD 0 5,800 0 0 5,800
PROGRAMS.........
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
42 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 310,503 0 0 310,503
SYSTEM...........
SONOBUOYS
85 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 2,910 0 0 2,910
TYPES............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
88 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT 0 13,420 0 0 13,420
EQUIPMENT........
94 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 500 0 0 500
EQUIPMENT........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
103 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 15,307 0 0 15,307
DISPOSAL EQUIP...
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
108 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 173 0 0 173
VEHICLES.........
109 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 408 0 0 408
TRUCKS...........
111 FIRE FIGHTING 0 785 0 0 785
EQUIPMENT........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
117 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT.. 0 100 0 0 100
118 FIRST DESTINATION 0 510 0 0 510
TRANSPORTATION...
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
122 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 2,800 0 0 2,800
EQUIPMENT........
123 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 1,794 0 0 1,794
EQUIPMENT........
126 OPERATING FORCES 0 1,090 0 0 1,090
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
128 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 200 0 0 200
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
129 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 1,300 0 0 1,300
EQUIPMENT........
TOTAL OTHER 0 357,600 0 0 0 357,600
PROCUREMENT, NAVY

PROCUREMENT,
MARINE CORPS
GUIDED MISSILES
12 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 130 16,919 0 130 16,919
(GMLRS)..........
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
45 EOD SYSTEMS....... 0 3,670 0 0 3,670
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 130 20,589 0 0 130 20,589
MARINE CORPS.....

AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
OTHER AIRCRAFT
17 MQ-9.............. 9 172,240 0 9 172,240
18 RQ-20B PUMA....... 18 12,150 0 18 12,150
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
22 LARGE AIRCRAFT 0 53,335 0 0 53,335
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES..
OTHER AIRCRAFT
67 MQ-9 UAS PAYLOADS. 0 19,800 0 0 19,800
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR PARTS
69 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 44,560 0 0 44,560
REPAIR PARTS.....
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
72 AIRCRAFT 0 7,025 0 0 7,025
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 27 309,110 0 0 27 309,110
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE............

MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL
4 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 19 20,900 0 19 20,900
STANDOFF MISSILE.
8 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 2,328 180,771 0 2,328 180,771
MISSILE..........
TOTAL MISSILE 2,347 201,671 0 0 2,347 201,671
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE............

PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS........... 0 218,228 0 -133,268 0 84,960
Transfer back [0] [-133,268]
to base
funding.......
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES........ 0 193,091 0 -140,449 0 52,642
Transfer back [0] [-140,449]
to base
funding.......
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS.... 0 29,313 0 -29,313 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-29,313]
to base
funding.......
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 631,194 0 -85,885 0 545,309
BOMBS............
Transfer back [0] [-85,885]
to base
funding.......
6 JOINT DIRECT 37,000 1,066,224 -37000 -1,066,224 0 0
ATTACK MUNITION..
Transfer back [-37,000] [-1,066,224]
to base
funding.......
7 B61............... 533 80,773 -533 -80,773 0 0
Transfer back [-533] [-80,773]
to base
funding.......
OTHER ITEMS
9 CAD/PAD........... 0 47,069 0 -47,069 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-47,069]
to base
funding.......
10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 6,133 0 -6,133 0 0
DISPOSAL (EOD)...
Transfer back [0] [-6,133]
to base
funding.......
11 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 533 0 -533 0 0
PARTS............
Transfer back [0] [-533]
to base
funding.......
12 MODIFICATIONS..... 0 1,291 0 -1,291 0 0
Transfer back [0] [-1,291]
to base
funding.......
13 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 1,677 0 -1,677 0 0
$5,000,000.......
Transfer back [0] [-1,677]
to base
funding.......
FLARES
15 FLARES............ 0 129,388 0 -36,116 0 93,272
Transfer back [0] [-36,116]
to base
funding.......
FUZES
16 FUZES............. 0 158,889 0 -1,734 0 157,155
Transfer back [0] [-1,734]
to base
funding.......
SMALL ARMS
17 SMALL ARMS........ 0 43,591 0 -37,496 0 6,095
Transfer back [0] [-37,496]
to base
funding.......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 37,533 2,607,394 -37,533 -1,667,961 0 939,433
OF AMMUNITION,
AIR FORCE........

OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 1,276 0 0 1,276
VEHICLES.........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
4 CARGO AND UTILITY 0 9,702 0 0 9,702
VEHICLES.........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 JOINT LIGHT 0 40,999 0 0 40,999
TACTICAL VEHICLE.
7 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 52,502 0 0 52,502
VEHICLES.........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
8 FIRE FIGHTING/ 0 16,652 0 0 16,652
CRASH RESCUE
VEHICLES.........
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
9 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 2,944 0 0 2,944
VEHICLES.........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
10 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV 0 3,753 0 0 3,753
AND CLEANING EQU.
11 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 11,837 0 0 11,837
SUPPORT VEHICLES.
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
27 GENERAL 0 5,000 0 0 5,000
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.......
31 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 106,919 0 0 106,919
SECURITY SYSTEM..
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
48 TACTICAL C-E 0 306 0 0 306
EQUIPMENT........
52 BASE COMM 0 4,300 0 0 4,300
INFRASTRUCTURE...
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
54 PERSONAL SAFETY 0 22,200 0 0 22,200
AND RESCUE
EQUIPMENT........
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
59 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT 0 26,535 0 0 26,535
60 FUELS SUPPORT 0 4,040 0 0 4,040
EQUIPMENT (FSE)..
61 BASE MAINTENANCE 0 20,067 0 0 20,067
AND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT........
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
CLASSIFIED 0 3,864,066 0 -655,000 0 3,209,066
PROGRAMS.........
Transfer back [0] [-655,000]
to base
funding.......
TOTAL OTHER 0 4,193,098 0 -655,000 0 3,538,098
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE............

PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
9 TELEPORT PROGRAM.. 0 3,800 0 0 3,800
12 DEFENSE 0 12,000 0 0 12,000
INFORMATION
SYSTEM NETWORK...
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
27 COUNTER IED & 0 4,590 0 0 4,590
IMPROVISED THREAT
TECHNOLOGIES.....
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
CLASSIFIED 0 56,380 0 -5,000 0 51,380
PROGRAMS.........
Transfer back [0] [-5,000]
to base
funding.......
AVIATION PROGRAMS
50 MANNED ISR........ 0 5,000 0 0 5,000
51 MC-12............. 0 5,000 0 0 5,000
52 MH-60 BLACKHAWK... 0 28,100 0 0 28,100
54 UNMANNED ISR...... 0 8,207 0 0 8,207
56 U-28.............. 0 31,500 0 0 31,500
57 MH-47 CHINOOK..... 0 37,500 0 0 37,500
59 MQ-9 UNMANNED 0 1,900 0 0 1,900
AERIAL VEHICLE...
AMMUNITION
PROGRAMS
64 ORDNANCE ITEMS 0 138,252 0 0 138,252
<$5M.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
65 INTELLIGENCE 0 16,500 0 0 16,500
SYSTEMS..........
67 OTHER ITEMS <$5M.. 0 28 0 0 28
70 TACTICAL VEHICLES. 0 2,990 0 0 2,990
71 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 37,512 0 0 37,512
<$5M.............
72 COMBAT MISSION 0 10,000 0 0 10,000
REQUIREMENTS.....
74 OPERATIONAL 0 7,594 0 0 7,594
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.....
75 OPERATIONAL 0 45,194 0 0 45,194
ENHANCEMENTS.....
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 0 452,047 0 -5,000 0 447,047
DEFENSE-WIDE.....

TOTAL PROCUREMENT. 69,543 23,143,022 -57,110 -13,454,964 12,433 9,688,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 297,976 5,000 302,976
..................... Counter UAS [5,000]
University Research.
3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 65,858 65,858
INITIATIVES.
4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 86,164 2,000 88,164
RESEARCH CENTERS.
..................... 3D printing.......... [2,000]
5 0601121A CYBER COLLABORATIVE 4,982 5,000 9,982
RESEARCH ALLIANCE.
..................... Cyber basic research. [5,000]
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 454,980 12,000 466,980
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
10 0602141A LETHALITY TECHNOLOGY..... 26,961 26,961
11 0602142A ARMY APPLIED RESEARCH.... 25,319 25,319
12 0602143A SOLDIER LETHALITY 115,274 3,000 118,274
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... UPL MDTF for [3,000]
INDOPACOM.
13 0602144A GROUND TECHNOLOGY........ 35,199 6,500 41,699
..................... Advanced materials [2,000]
manufacturing process.
..................... Biopolymer structural [2,000]
materials.
..................... Cellulose structural [2,500]
materials.
14 0602145A NEXT GENERATION COMBAT 219,047 15,000 234,047
VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Support operational [15,000]
energy development
and testing.
15 0602146A NETWORK C3I TECHNOLOGY... 114,516 114,516
16 0602147A LONG RANGE PRECISION 74,327 12,000 86,327
FIRES TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Composite tube and [10,000]
propulsion technology.
..................... Novel printed [2,000]
armament components.
17 0602148A FUTURE VERTICLE LIFT 93,601 93,601
TECHNOLOGY.
18 0602150A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 50,771 50,771
TECHNOLOGY.
20 0602213A C3I APPLIED CYBER........ 18,947 5,000 23,947
..................... Cyber research....... [5,000]
38 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 20,873 20,873
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
40 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 99,155 3,000 102,155
..................... Female warfighter [3,000]
performance research.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 893,990 44,500 938,490
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
42 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 42,030 42,030
TECHNOLOGY.
47 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 11,038 11,038
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
50 0603117A ARMY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 63,338 63,338
DEVELOPMENT.
51 0603118A SOLDIER LETHALITY 118,468 118,468
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
52 0603119A GROUND ADVANCED 12,593 20,000 32,593
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... 100 hour battery..... [10,000]
..................... Computational [2,000]
manufacturing
engineering.
..................... Lightweight [3,000]
protective and
hardening materials.
..................... Robotic construction [5,000]
research.
59 0603457A C3I CYBER ADVANCED 13,769 13,769
DEVELOPMENT.
60 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 184,755 184,755
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
61 0603462A NEXT GENERATION COMBAT 160,035 25,000 185,035
VEHICLE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Ground vehicle [5,000]
sustainment research.
..................... Hydrogen fuel cell [20,000]
propulsion &
autonomous driving
controls.
62 0603463A NETWORK C3I ADVANCED 106,899 106,899
TECHNOLOGY.
63 0603464A LONG RANGE PRECISION 174,386 4,000 178,386
FIRES ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Hypersonics research. [4,000]
64 0603465A FUTURE VERTICAL LIFT 151,640 151,640
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
65 0603466A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 60,613 60,613
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,099,564 49,000 1,148,564
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
73 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE 10,987 10,987
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
74 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 15,148 15,148
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
75 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 92,915 92,915
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
77 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 82,146 82,146
AMMUNITION.
78 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM 157,656 157,656
MODERNIZATION--ADV DEV.
79 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 6,514 6,514
SURVIVABILITY.
80 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 34,890 34,890
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
81 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 251,011 251,011
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
82 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 15,132 15,132
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
83 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 5,406 5,406
DEVELOPMENT.
84 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV........ 459,290 75,600 534,890
..................... UPL FVL CS3 program [75,600]
increase.
85 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 6,254 6,254
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
86 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 31,175 31,175
87 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 22,113 22,113
DEVELOPMENT.
88 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT..... 115,222 115,222
90 0604021A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 18,043 18,043
TECHNOLOGY MATURATION
(MIP).
91 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. 10,023 10,023
92 0604113A FUTURE TACTICAL UNMANNED 40,745 40,745
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (FTUAS).
93 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE 427,772 427,772
DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR.
94 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 196,676 196,676
INITIATIVES.
95 0604117A MANEUVER--SHORT RANGE AIR 33,100 33,100
DEFENSE (M-SHORAD).
97 0604119A ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT 115,116 115,116
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
99 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING 136,761 136,761
ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
100 0604182A HYPERSONICS.............. 228,000 130,610 358,610
..................... UPL accelerate [130,610]
Hypersonic Weapons
System.
102 0604403A FUTURE INTERCEPTOR....... 8,000 8,000
103 0604541A UNIFIED NETWORK TRANSPORT 39,600 39,600
104 0604644A MOBILE MEDIUM RANGE 20,000 20,000
MISSILE.
106 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS 52,102 52,102
FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
107 1206120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 192,562 192,562
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
108 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 104,996 104,996
INTEGRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 2,929,355 206,210 3,135,565
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
109 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........ 29,164 29,164
110 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 70,539 70,539
DEVELOPMENT.
113 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 106,121 19,900 126,021
..................... UPL Next Generation [19,900]
Squad Weapon--
Automatic Rifle.
114 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES. 2,152 2,152
115 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 17,897 17,897
116 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 16,745 16,745
VEHICLES.
117 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 6,989 6,989
118 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED 10,465 10,465
VEHICLES.
119 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS 310,152 310,152
MODERNIZATION (ASM)--ENG
DEV.
120 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 181,732 181,732
DEV.
121 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 2,393 2,393
AND EQUIPMENT.
122 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 27,412 27,412
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
123 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 43,502 43,502
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
124 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 11,636 11,636
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
125 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 10,915 10,915
DEVELOPMENT.
126 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 7,801 7,801
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
127 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR 25,000 25,000
SUBMUNITION (BAT).
128 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 9,241 9,241
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
129 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 42,634 42,634
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
130 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 181,023 181,023
ENG DEV.
131 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 103,226 103,226
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
132 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 12,595 12,595
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
133 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 48,264 48,264
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
134 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 39,208 39,208
ENG DEV.
135 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 140,637 140,637
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
136 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 105,243 105,243
137 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 46,683 46,683
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
138 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 17,294 17,294
139 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 5,803 5,803
DEM/VAL.
140 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY 98,698 98,698
ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS--EMD.
141 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 15,832 15,832
142 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 126,537 126,537
DEVELOPMENT.
143 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 142,773 -142,773
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
..................... Poor business process [-142,773]
reengineering.
144 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 96,730 96,730
VEHICLE (AMPV).
145 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND 6,699 6,699
SECURITY SURVEILLANCE
RESPONSE CAPABILITY
(IGSSR-C).
146 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 15,882 15,882
CENTER (JTNC).
147 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 40,808 40,808
(JTN).
149 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL 3,847 3,847
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--
EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E).
150 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 6,928 6,928
(TSS).
151 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 34,488 34,488
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
152 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS 10,000 10,000
DESTRUCTION (CWMD).
154 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL 6,054 6,054
CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE
VEHICLE (NBCRV) SENSOR
SUITE.
155 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL 62,262 62,262
DEVELOPMENT.
156 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO 35,654 35,654
SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER).
157 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM.. 19,682 -19,682
..................... Program duplication.. [-19,682]
158 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM 1,539 1,539
MODERNIZATION (MWSM).
159 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 64,557 64,557
DEVELOPMENT.
160 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 243,228 -93,600 149,628
CAPABILITY INC 2--BLOCK
1.
..................... EMAM development [-124,200]
ahead of need.
..................... Iron Dome testing and [20,600]
delivery.
..................... UPL Multi-Domain [10,000]
Artillery.
161 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS.......... 41,308 -12,800 28,508
..................... Army requested [-12,800]
realignment.
162 0605054A EMERGING TECHNOLOGY 45,896 45,896
INITIATIVES.
163 0605203A ARMY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 164,883 164,883
DEMONSTRATION.
165 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 9,500 9,500
MISSILE (JAGM).
166 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 208,938 208,938
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
167 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE.... 378,400 40,000 418,400
..................... UPL NGCV 50mm gun.... [40,000]
168 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 7,835 7,835
INTEGRATION (MIP).
169 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 2,732 4,500 7,232
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
..................... Army requested [4,500]
realignment.
170 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 1,664 1,664
EQUIPMENT.
172 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 3,936 3,936
174 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 19,675 19,675
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,549,431 -204,455 3,344,976
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
176 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 14,117 2,000 16,117
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Cybersecurity threat [2,000]
simulation.
177 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 8,327 8,327
DEVELOPMENT.
178 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 136,565 136,565
179 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 13,113 13,113
180 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 238,691 238,691
181 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 42,922 42,922
PROGRAM.
183 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 334,468 15,000 349,468
FACILITIES.
..................... Directed energy test [15,000]
capabilities.
184 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 46,974 46,974
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
185 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 35,075 35,075
ANALYSIS.
186 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 3,461 3,461
187 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 6,233 6,233
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
188 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 21,342 21,342
189 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 11,168 11,168
ITEMS.
190 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 52,723 52,723
TESTING.
191 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 60,815 60,815
192 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 2,527 2,527
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
193 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 58,175 58,175
194 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 25,060 25,060
ACTIVITIES.
195 0605805A MUNITIONS 44,458 44,458
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
196 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4,681 4,681
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
197 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT 53,820 53,820
HEADQUARTERS--R&D - MHA.
198 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED 4,291 4,291
CREW TECHNOLOGY.
199 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC 62,069 62,069
MISSILE DEFENSE TEST
SITE.
200 0606003A COUNTERINTEL AND HUMAN 1,050 1,050
INTEL MODERNIZATION.
201 0606942A ASSESSMENTS AND 4,500 4,500
EVALUATIONS CYBER
VULNERABILITIES.
..................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT 1,286,625 17,000 1,303,625
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
204 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 22,877 22,877
PROGRAM.
206 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 8,491 8,491
SUPPORT.
207 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 15,645 15,645
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
209 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION 164,182 164,182
FIRES (LRPF).
211 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 13,039 13,039
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
212 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT 174,371 174,371
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
213 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 4,545 4,545
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
214 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 206,434 206,434
PROGRAM.
216 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM 24,221 24,221
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT.
217 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM 32,016 32,016
UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS.
218 0607145A APACHE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 5,448 5,448
219 0607312A ARMY OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS 49,526 49,526
DEVELOPMENT.
220 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS..... 1,702 1,702
221 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 96,430 96,430
IMPROVEMENT.
222 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 47,398 47,398
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
223 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 334,463 334,463
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
225 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED 214,246 214,246
HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS.
226 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 16,486 16,486
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
227 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 144 144
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
228 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 5,270 5,270
229 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 1,287 1,287
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
230 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 0 24,100 24,100
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
..................... UPL CD ATACMS........ [24,100]
234 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 732 732
TECHNOLOGY--OPERATIONAL
SYSTEM DEV.
235 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND 107,746 107,746
MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD)
SYSTEM.
236 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 138,594 138,594
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
238 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 13,845 13,845
ACTIVITIES.
239 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 29,185 29,185
SECURITY PROGRAM.
240 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 68,976 68,976
SYSTEM.
241 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 2,073 2,073
CONTROL SYSTEM.
245 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 459 459
SERVICE (IBS).
246 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 5,097 5,097
VEHICLES.
247 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 11,177 11,177
SYSTEMS.
248 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 38,121 38,121
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
250 0305232A RQ-11 UAV................ 3,218 3,218
251 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 7,817 7,817
252 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 2,000 2,000
INTELLIGENCE.
253 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 59,848 3,000 62,848
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
..................... Nanoscale materials [3,000]
manufacturing.
254 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 34,169 34,169
(SPACE).
255 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 10,275 10,275
SYSTEM.
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 7,273 7,273
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,978,826 27,100 2,005,926
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 12,192,771 151,355 12,344,126
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 116,850 10,000 126,850
INITIATIVES.
..................... Cyber basic research. [10,000]
2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 19,121 19,121
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 470,007 470,007
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 605,978 10,000 615,978
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 18,546 18,546
RESEARCH.
5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 119,517 16,500 136,017
RESEARCH.
..................... Carbon capture....... [8,000]
..................... Electric propulsion [2,500]
research.
..................... Energy resilience [3,000]
research.
..................... Program reduction.... [-5,000]
..................... Test bed for [8,000]
autonomous ship
systems.
6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 56,604 3,000 59,604
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Interdisciplinary [3,000]
cybersecurity.
7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 49,297 -5,000 44,297
RESEARCH.
..................... Coordinate space [-5,000]
activities.
8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 63,825 2,000 65,825
APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... Warfighter safety and [2,000]
performance research.
9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 83,497 -5,000 78,497
APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... Coordinate EW [-5,000]
activities.
10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 63,894 63,894
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,346 6,346
APPLIED RESEARCH.
12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 57,075 7,500 64,575
RESEARCH.
..................... Undersea vehicle [7,500]
technology research.
13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 154,755 154,755
APPLIED RESEARCH.
14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 36,074 36,074
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
15 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL 153,062 153,062
PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
16 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 73,961 73,961
MANAGEMENT--ONR FIELD
ACITIVITIES.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 936,453 19,000 955,453
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
17 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 35,286 35,286
TECHNOLOGY.
18 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 9,499 9,499
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
19 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 172,847 4,000 176,847
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
..................... Consolidate efforts [-5,000]
in AI/ML with Joint
Force.
..................... UPL MUDLAN program [9,000]
increase.
20 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 13,307 13,307
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
21 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 231,907 231,907
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
22 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 60,138 60,138
PROGRAM.
23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,849 4,849
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 67,739 67,739
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
26 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 13,335 13,335
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
27 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL 133,303 -5,000 128,303
PROTOTYPES (INP)
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Reduce electronic [-5,000]
manuever.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 742,210 -1,000 741,210
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
28 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 32,643 6,000 38,643
APPLICATIONS.
..................... Program increase for [6,000]
1 REMUS 600 vehicle.
29 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 11,919 11,919
30 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 1,473 1,473
31 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 7,172 7,172
32 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,419 3,419
RECONNAISSANCE.
33 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 64,694 64,694
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 507,000 -372,500 134,500
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
..................... Excess procurement [-372,500]
ahead of satisfactory
testing.
35 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 15,800 15,800
DEFENSE.
36 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 4,997 4,997
DEVELOPMENT.
37 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 291,148 291,148
38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 11,980 11,980
39 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 129,163 129,163
40 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 689 689
41 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 1,137 1,137
42 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 148,756 5,000 153,756
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Project 2033: Test [5,000]
site emergent repairs.
43 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 11,192 11,192
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
44 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 81,846 -24,000 57,846
DESIGN.
..................... Early to need........ [-24,000]
45 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 69,084 -46,600 22,484
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
..................... Early to need........ [-46,600]
46 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 181,652 181,652
SYSTEMS.
47 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 25,408 125,000 150,408
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
..................... Surface combatant [125,000]
component-level
prototyping.
48 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 64,877 64,877
49 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 9,934 9,934
(LCS).
50 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 17,251 17,251
51 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT......... 419,051 15,000 434,051
..................... Accelerate advanced [15,000]
propulsor development.
52 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES...... 108,505 -5,000 103,505
..................... Availabe prior year [-5,000]
funds due to SUW MP
testing delay.
53 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND 7,653 7,653
ANALYSIS.
54 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT...... 59,007 59,007
55 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 9,988 9,988
56 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 86,464 86,464
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
57 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 33,478 33,478
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
58 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 5,619 5,619
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
59 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 20,564 20,564
60 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 26,514 26,514
61 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 3,440 3,440
62 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 346,800 346,800
63 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 3,857 3,857
PRODUCTIVITY.
64 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 258,519 258,519
65 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 403,909 403,909
66 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 63,434 63,434
67 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN........... 184,110 184,110
68 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 7,697 7,697
DEVELOPMENT.
69 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 9,086 9,086
70 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 28,466 28,466
TESTING.
71 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 51,341 51,341
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
72 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 118,169 118,169
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
73 0604014N F/A -18 INFRARED SEARCH 113,456 113,456
AND TRACK (IRST).
74 0604027N DIGITAL WARFARE OFFICE... 50,120 50,120
75 0604028N SMALL AND MEDIUM UNMANNED 32,527 32,527
UNDERSEA VEHICLES.
76 0604029N UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE 54,376 54,376
CORE TECHNOLOGIES.
77 0604030N RAPID PROTOTYPING, 36,197 36,197
EXPERIMENTATION AND
DEMONSTRATION..
78 0604031N LARGE UNMANNED UNDERSEA 68,310 68,310
VEHICLES.
79 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 121,310 121,310
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
80 0604126N LITTORAL AIRBORNE MCM.... 17,248 17,248
81 0604127N SURFACE MINE 18,735 18,735
COUNTERMEASURES.
82 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 68,346 68,346
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
84 0604289M NEXT GENERATION LOGISTICS 4,420 9,000 13,420
..................... Additive [9,000]
manufacturing
logistics software
pilot.
85 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY 4,558 4,558
CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE.
86 0604454N LX (R)................... 12,500 12,500
87 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA 181,967 181,967
PROTOTYPING.
88 0604636N COUNTER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 5,500 5,500
SYSTEMS (C-UAS).
89 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 718,148 5,000 723,148
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
..................... Increase for SLCM-N [5,000]
AOA.
90 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 5,263 5,263
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
SUPPORT.
91 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 65,419 65,419
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
92 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 9,991 9,991
MIP.
93 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL 21,157 21,157
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM.
95 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 609 609
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 5,559,062 -283,100 5,275,962
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
96 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT. 15,514 15,514
97 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 28,835 28,835
98 0604214M AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 27,441 27,441
100 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 3,642 3,642
101 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 19,196 19,196
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
104 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 8,601 8,601
105 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 77,232 77,232
106 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 232,752 232,752
107 0604245M H-1 UPGRADES............. 65,359 65,359
109 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 47,013 47,013
110 0604262N V-22A.................... 185,105 5,500 190,605
..................... Increase reliability [5,500]
and reduce vibrations
of V-22 Nacelles.
111 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 21,172 21,172
DEVELOPMENT.
112 0604269N EA-18.................... 143,585 143,585
113 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 116,811 116,811
DEVELOPMENT.
114 0604273M EXECUTIVE HELO 187,436 187,436
DEVELOPMENT.
116 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 524,261 524,261
(NGJ).
117 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 192,345 192,345
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
118 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 111,068 111,068
(NGJ) INCREMENT II.
119 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 415,625 415,625
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
120 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 640 640
INTEGRATION.
121 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 50,096 50,096
122 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 232,391 232,391
IMPROVEMENTS.
123 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 10,916 10,916
124 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 33,379 33,379
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
125 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 34,554 34,554
SENSORS.
126 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 84,663 84,663
MODERNIZATION.
127 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 44,923 44,923
128 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 10,632 10,632
SYSTEMS.
129 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER 16,094 16,094
CONVERSION.
130 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 55,349 55,349
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
131 0604530N ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR 123,490 123,490
(AAG).
132 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 121,010 121,010
133 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 62,426 62,426
WARFARE SYSTEM.
134 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 46,809 46,809
LIVE FIRE T&E.
135 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 3,692 3,692
RESOURCES.
137 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 28,964 71,300 100,264
..................... UPL Quickstrike JDAM [71,300]
ER.
138 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 148,349 148,349
DEVELOPMENT.
139 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,237 8,237
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
140 0604657M USMC GROUND COMBAT/ 22,000 22,000
SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
141 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 5,500 5,500
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
142 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 18,725 18,725
SYSTEMS.
143 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 192,603 192,603
& CONTROL).
144 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 137,268 137,268
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
145 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 97,363 97,363
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
146 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 26,710 26,710
147 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 8,181 8,181
148 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 40,755 40,755
149 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 1,710 1,710
(JSF)--EMD.
150 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 1,490 1,490
(JSF)--EMD.
153 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,494 1,494
DEVELOPMENT.
154 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 384,162 -55,440 328,722
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... eProcurement program [-55,440]
duplication.
155 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 4,882 4,882
SUPPORT.
156 0605212M CH-53K RDTE.............. 516,955 -10,000 506,955
..................... Early to need........ [-10,000]
158 0605215N MISSION PLANNING......... 75,886 75,886
159 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS.......... 43,187 43,187
160 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 4,909 15,000 19,909
(SSC).
..................... Expand development [15,000]
and use of composite
materials.
161 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS........... 1,682 1,682
162 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION 671,258 671,258
(UCA).
163 0605450M JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 18,393 18,393
MISSILE (JAGM).
165 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 21,472 21,472
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
166 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 177,234 177,234
(MMA) INCREMENT III.
167 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 77,322 77,322
VEHICLES SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
168 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 2,105 2,105
VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
169 0204202N DDG-1000................. 111,435 111,435
172 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 101,339 101,339
SYSTEMS.
173 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS 26,406 26,406
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,332,033 26,360 6,358,393
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
174 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 66,678 66,678
DEVELOPMENT.
175 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 12,027 12,027
DEVELOPMENT.
176 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 85,348 85,348
178 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,908 3,908
SUPPORT--NAVY.
179 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 47,669 47,669
180 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER.. 20,698 20,698
182 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 988 988
SERVICES.
183 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 102,401 102,401
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
184 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 3,742 3,742
SUPPORT.
186 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 93,872 93,872
SUPPORT.
187 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 394,020 394,020
SUPPORT.
188 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 25,145 25,145
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
189 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 15,773 15,773
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
190 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 8,402 8,402
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
191 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 37,265 37,265
SUPPORT.
192 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 39,673 39,673
193 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION 28,750 28,750
MANAGEMENT.
196 0305327N INSIDER THREAT........... 2,645 2,645
197 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 1,460 1,460
(DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES).
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 990,464 0 990,464
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
202 0604227N HARPOON MODIFICATIONS.... 2,302 2,302
203 0604840M F-35 C2D2................ 422,881 422,881
204 0604840N F-35 C2D2................ 383,741 383,741
205 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 127,924 127,924
CAPABILITY (CEC).
207 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 157,676 157,676
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
208 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 43,354 43,354
PROGRAM.
209 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 6,815 6,815
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
210 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 31,174 31,174
COMMUNICATIONS.
211 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 213,715 213,715
213 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 36,389 36,389
214 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 320,134 320,134
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
215 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 88,382 15,000 103,382
SYSTEM.
..................... Additional TRAPS [15,000]
units.
216 0204313N SHIP-TOWED ARRAY 14,449 14,449
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.
217 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 6,931 6,931
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
218 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 23,891 23,891
RADAR (G/ATOR).
219 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 129,873 129,873
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
221 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 82,325 82,325
READINESS SUPPORT.
222 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 138,431 138,431
224 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 29,572 29,572
INTEGRATION.
225 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 85,973 85,973
226 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 125,461 125,461
227 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 106,192 106,192
SYSTEMS.
228 0206313M MARINE CORPS 143,317 143,317
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
229 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND 4,489 4,489
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
(CAC2S).
230 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 51,788 51,788
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
231 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 37,761 5,000 42,761
SERVICES SUPPORT.
..................... Airborne Power [5,000]
Generation Tech
Development.
232 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 21,458 21,458
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
233 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT 5,476 5,476
VEHICLE.
234 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 19,488 19,488
235 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 39,029 39,029
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
239 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 34,344 34,344
(SPACE).
240 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 22,873 22,873
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
241 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 41,853 41,853
SECURITY PROGRAM.
243 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 8,913 8,913
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
244 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 9,451 9,451
VEHICLES.
245 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 42,315 42,315
INTEROPERABILITY.
246 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 22,042 22,042
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
248 0305220N MQ-4C TRITON............. 11,784 11,784
249 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 29,618 29,618
250 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 509 509
251 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 11,545 11,545
UAS (STUASL0).
252 0305239M RQ-21A................... 10,914 10,914
253 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 70,612 70,612
DEVELOPMENT.
254 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 3,704 3,704
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
255 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION....... 202,346 202,346
256 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 7,119 7,119
SUPPORT.
257 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 38,182 38,182
IF).
258 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 6,779 6,779
(MARITECH).
259 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 15,868 15,868
(SPACE).
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,613,137 1,613,137
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 5,104,299 20,000 5,124,299
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 20,270,499 -208,740 20,061,759
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 356,107 356,107
2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 158,859 158,859
INITIATIVES.
3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 14,795 14,795
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 529,761 0 529,761
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602102F MATERIALS................ 128,851 -6,000 122,851
..................... Advanced materials [4,000]
high energy x-ray.
..................... Duplicative material [-10,000]
research.
5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 147,724 -10,000 137,724
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... Reduce program growth [-10,000]
6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 131,795 131,795
APPLIED RESEARCH.
7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 198,775 198,775
8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 202,912 202,912
10 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7,968 7,968
MANAGEMENT-- MAJOR
HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES.
12 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 142,772 142,772
13 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 124,379 124,379
TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 181,562 17,500 199,062
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
..................... Counter UAS cyber.... [2,500]
..................... Cyberspace dominance [10,000]
technology research.
..................... Quantum science...... [5,000]
15 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 44,221 5,000 49,221
RESEARCH.
..................... High power microwave [5,000]
research.
16 1206601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 124,667 124,667
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 1,435,626 6,500 1,442,126
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
17 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 36,586 2,000 38,586
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
..................... Metals affordability [2,000]
research.
18 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 16,249 16,249
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
19 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 38,292 38,292
SENSORS.
20 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 102,949 205,000 307,949
DEMO.
..................... Accelerate air [75,000]
breathing hypersonic
program.
..................... Active winglets [5,000]
development.
..................... Advanced Personnel [25,000]
Recovery.
..................... LCAAT................ [100,000]
21 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 113,973 10,000 123,973
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Advanced turbine [10,000]
engine gas generator.
22 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 48,408 -10,000 38,408
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Duplicative EW & PNT [-10,000]
research.
23 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 70,525 3,000 73,525
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Strategic radiation [3,000]
hardened
microelectronic
processors.
24 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 11,878 11,878
SYSTEM (MSSS).
25 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 37,542 37,542
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
26 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 225,817 225,817
TECHNOLOGY.
27 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 37,404 37,404
TECHNOLOGY.
28 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 43,116 7,000 50,116
PROGRAM.
..................... Advanced materials [7,000]
and materials
manufacturing.
29 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 56,414 10,000 66,414
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... Cyber applied [10,000]
research.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 839,153 227,000 1,066,153
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
31 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,672 5,672
DEVELOPMENT.
32 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 27,085 27,085
TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,955 4,955
DEVELOPMENT.
34 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 44,109 44,109
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
36 0604002F AIR FORCE WEATHER 772 772
SERVICES RESEARCH.
37 0604004F ADVANCED ENGINE 878,442 878,442
DEVELOPMENT.
38 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE--BOMBER 3,003,899 3,003,899
39 0604032F DIRECTED ENERGY 10,000 10,000
PROTOTYPING.
40 0604033F HYPERSONICS PROTOTYPING.. 576,000 576,000
41 0604201F PNT RESILIENCY, MODS, AND 92,600 32,000 124,600
IMPROVEMENTS.
..................... UPL M-CODE [32,000]
acceleration.
42 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND 23,145 23,145
SENSORS.
43 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS 16,669 16,669
CENTER (NAOC) RECAP.
44 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 23,614 23,614
45 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 113,121 113,121
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
46 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF 56,325 56,325
WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS.
47 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION 28,034 28,034
ENTERPRISE R&D.
48 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 128,476 6,000 134,476
..................... Rapid repair......... [6,000]
49 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 570,373 22,000 592,373
DETERRENT.
..................... Program consolidation [22,000]
50 0207100F LIGHT ATTACK ARMED 35,000 50,000 85,000
RECONNAISSANCE (LAAR)
SQUADRONS.
..................... Light attack [50,000]
experiment.
51 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 1,000,000 1,000,000
DOMINANCE.
52 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 37,290 37,290
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
53 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP).... 10,000 10,000
54 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK 36,910 36,910
EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
55 0305251F CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS 35,000 35,000
FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
56 0305601F MISSION PARTNER 8,550 8,550
ENVIRONMENTS.
57 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS 198,864 41,200 240,064
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Accelerate [13,600]
development of Cyber
National Mission
Force capabilities.
..................... ETERNALDARKNESS...... [7,100]
..................... Joint Common Access [20,500]
Platform.
58 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES. 16,632 16,632
60 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION 20,830 20,830
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM.
61 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 329,948 329,948
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
62 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS.... 101,222 101,222
63 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON. 225,660 225,660
64 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 29,776 29,776
SYSTEMS.
65 1206427F SPACE SYSTEMS PROTOTYPE 142,045 142,045
TRANSITIONS (SSPT).
67 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 64,231 64,231
68 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND 56,385 56,385
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
69 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL 105,003 -10,000 95,003
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
(PTES).
..................... Unjustified growth... [-10,000]
70 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL 173,694 -10,000 163,694
SERVICE (PTS).
..................... Unjustified growth... [-10,000]
71 1206855F EVOLVED STRATEGIC SATCOM 172,206 172,206
(ESS).
72 1206857F SPACE RAPID CAPABILITIES 33,742 33,742
OFFICE.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 8,436,279 131,200 8,567,479
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
73 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON 246,200 -149,080 97,120
ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS.
..................... ERWn contract delay.. [-149,080]
74 0604201F PNT RESILIENCY, MODS, AND 67,782 81,000 148,782
IMPROVEMENTS.
..................... UPL M-Code [81,000]
Acceleration.
75 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.. 4,406 4,406
76 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 2,066 2,066
DEVELOPMENT.
77 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 229,631 229,631
ENTERPRISE.
78 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 9,700 9,700
EQUIPMENT.
79 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 31,241 31,241
(SDB)--EMD.
80 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 2 2
ATTACK.
81 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 28,043 28,043
DEVELOPMENT.
82 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 3,045 3,045
83 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 19,944 19,944
84 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 8,624 8,624
85 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 37,365 37,365
86 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 7,628 7,628
87 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 712,539 712,539
WEAPON.
88 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 161,199 161,199
89 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 2,414 2,414
CENTER (JTNC).
91 0605056F OPEN ARCHITECTURE 30,000 30,000
MANAGEMENT.
93 0605221F KC-46.................... 59,561 59,561
94 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.. 348,473 348,473
95 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER. 247,047 247,047
98 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 294,400 294,400
SYSTEM.
99 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 27,564 27,564
MODERNIZATION.
100 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS...... 1 1
101 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS.............. 47,322 47,322
102 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON... 162,840 162,840
103 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 9,797 9,797
TRAINING.
106 0401310F C-32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT 9,930 9,930
RECAPITALIZATION.
107 0401319F VC-25B................... 757,923 757,923
108 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS... 2,787 2,787
109 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 2,000 2,000
LOCATOR.
110 1203269F GPS III FOLLOW-ON (GPS 462,875 462,875
IIIF).
111 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 76,829 76,829
OPERATIONS.
112 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 29,037 29,037
113 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON. 2,237 2,237
114 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 412,894 412,894
SYSTEMS.
115 1206426F SPACE FENCE.............. 0 20,000 20,000
..................... Space Fence.......... [20,000]
116 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 117,290 117,290
(SPACE).
117 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 427,400 427,400
118 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 1,920 1,920
(SPACE).
119 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 1 1
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
120 1206442F NEXT GENERATION OPIR..... 1,395,278 1,395,278
122 1206853F NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE 432,009 432,009
LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,929,244 -48,080 6,881,164
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
123 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 59,693 59,693
DEVELOPMENT.
124 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 181,663 51,000 232,663
..................... UPL M-Code [36,000]
Acceleration.
..................... Utah training range [15,000]
instrumentation.
125 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 35,258 35,258
127 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 13,793 13,793
& EVALUATION.
128 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 717,895 54,000 771,895
SUPPORT.
..................... Acelerate prototype [5,000]
program.
..................... Facilitates 5G test [49,000]
and evaluation.
129 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 258,667 258,667
POWER.
130 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG 251,992 251,992
& COMBAT SYS.
131 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 149,191 149,191
REACH.
132 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, 235,360 235,360
NETWORK, & BUS SYS.
133 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 160,196 160,196
BATTLE MGMT.
134 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY 220,255 220,255
INTEGRATION.
135 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED 42,392 42,392
PRGM TECHNOLOGY.
136 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR 133,231 133,231
SYSTEMS.
137 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 5,590 5,590
138 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 88,445 88,445
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
139 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 29,424 29,424
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
140 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 62,715 62,715
MATURATION.
141 0606398F MANAGEMENT HQ--T&E....... 5,013 5,013
142 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 17,128 17,128
SERVICES (EIS).
143 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 5,913 5,913
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
144 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 1,475 1,475
146 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 4,071 4,071
147 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 19,942 19,942
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
148 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 167,810 167,810
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
149 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS 10,170 10,170
CENTER--MHA.
150 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 13,192 13,192
PROGRAM (SPACE).
151 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 26,097 26,097
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,916,571 105,000 3,021,571
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
152 0604003F ADVANCED BATTLE 35,611 49,000 84,611
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ABMS).
..................... Accelerates 5G [49,000]
military use.
154 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 2,584 2,584
FLIGHT TRAINING.
156 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION 903 903
ENTERPRISE R&D.
157 0604840F F-35 C2D2................ 694,455 694,455
158 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 40,567 -40,567
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
..................... Poor agile [-40,567]
development.
159 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 47,193 47,193
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
160 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL 70,083 70,083
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
161 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 17,218 -12,400 4,818
..................... program delay........ [-12,400]
162 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION.......... 25,917 25,917
164 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 325,974 325,974
165 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 10,217 10,217
MISSILE (ALCM).
166 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 1,000 1,000
167 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 97,276 97,276
168 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS...... 128,961 -22,000 106,961
..................... Program consolidation [-22,000]
170 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 18,177 18,177
COMMUNICATIONS.
171 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC 24,261 24,261
PLANNING & ANALYSIS
NETWORK.
172 0101328F ICBM REENTRY VEHICLES.... 75,571 75,571
174 0102110F UH-1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 170,975 170,975
176 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 154,996 154,996
178 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 36,816 36,816
179 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 193,013 193,013
180 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 336,079 336,079
181 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 15,521 15,521
SUPPRESSION.
182 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 496,298 496,298
183 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 99,943 99,943
184 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 10,314 10,314
185 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 55,384 55,384
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
186 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 281 281
187 0207247F AF TENCAP................ 21,365 21,365
188 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 10,696 10,696
PROCUREMENT.
189 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 15,888 15,888
190 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 112,505 112,505
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
191 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 78,498 78,498
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
192 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 114,864 114,864
CENTER (AOC).
193 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 8,109 8,109
CENTER (CRC).
194 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 67,996 67,996
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
195 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 2,462 2,462
SYSTEMS.
197 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 13,668 13,668
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
198 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 6,217 6,217
PARTY-MOD.
200 0207452F DCAPES................... 19,910 19,910
201 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL 1,788 1,788
NUCLEAR FORENSICS.
202 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 28,237 28,237
203 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 15,725 15,725
SIMULATION.
204 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 4,316 4,316
CENTERS.
205 0207610F BATTLEFIELD ABN COMM NODE 26,946 26,946
(BACN).
206 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,303 4,303
EXERCISES.
207 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 71,465 71,465
208 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION....... 7,446 7,446
209 0208064F OPERATIONAL HQ--CYBER.... 7,602 7,602
210 0208087F DISTRIBUTED CYBER WARFARE 35,178 35,178
OPERATIONS.
211 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 16,609 16,609
OPERATIONS.
212 0208097F JOINT CYBER COMMAND AND 11,603 11,603
CONTROL (JCC2).
213 0208099F UNIFIED PLATFORM (UP).... 84,702 84,702
218 0301004F ADVANCED DATA TRANSPORT 0 21,000 21,000
FLIGHT TEST.
..................... Accelerate prototype [21,000]
test of 5G.
219 0301025F GEOBASE.................. 2,723 2,723
220 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND 44,190 44,190
EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES).
226 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER 3,575 3,575
NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR
BATTLESPACE AWARENESS.
227 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 70,173 70,173
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
228 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 13,543 13,543
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
229 0303133F HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO 15,881 15,881
SYSTEMS.
230 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 27,726 27,726
SECURITY PROGRAM.
232 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,210 2,210
DATA INITIATIVE.
234 0304115F MULTI DOMAIN COMMAND AND 150,880 150,880
CONTROL (MDC2).
235 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 102,667 102,667
ENTERPRISE.
236 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC 3,431 3,431
ANALYSIS.
239 0305015F C2 AIR OPERATIONS SUITE-- 9,313 9,313
C2 INFO SERVICES.
240 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE 1,121 1,121
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
241 0305022F ISR MODERNIZATION & 19,000 -19,000
AUTOMATION DVMT (IMAD).
..................... Not mature plan...... [-19,000]
242 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,544 4,544
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
243 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 25,461 25,461
244 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 5,651 5,651
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
245 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 7,448 7,448
248 0305128F SECURITY AND 425 425
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
249 0305145F ARMS CONTROL 54,546 54,546
IMPLEMENTATION.
250 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 6,858 6,858
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
252 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,728 8,728
SERVICE (IBS).
253 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 38,939 38,939
255 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 122,909 122,909
SYSTEMS.
256 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 11,787 11,787
SYSTEMS.
257 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 25,009 25,009
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
258 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 191,733 191,733
259 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 10,757 10,757
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
260 0305238F NATO AGS................. 32,567 32,567
261 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 37,774 37,774
ENTERPRISE.
262 0305600F INTERNATIONAL 13,515 13,515
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY
AND ARCHITECTURES.
263 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 4,383 4,383
264 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,133 2,133
COMMAND & CTRL (PRC2).
265 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 8,614 8,614
(IMD).
266 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 140,425 140,425
267 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 10,223 10,223
(IF).
268 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 25,101 25,101
269 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 8,640 8,640
270 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 5,424 5,424
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
272 0401219F KC-10S................... 20 20
274 0401318F CV-22.................... 17,906 17,906
276 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 3,629 3,629
CONTROL.
277 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,890 1,890
IF).
278 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & 10,311 10,311
OVERHAUL SYSTEM.
279 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 16,065 16,065
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
280 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 539 539
DEVELOPMENT.
281 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 2,057 2,057
282 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 10 10
ACTIVITIES.
283 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,060 2,060
AGENCY.
284 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,809 3,809
PROGRAM.
285 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 6,476 6,476
286 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,443 1,443
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
287 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 9,323 9,323
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
288 0901554F DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACNTNG 46,789 46,789
AND MGT SYS (DEAMS).
289 1201017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED 3,647 3,647
ON NETWORK (GSIN).
290 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 988 988
STRATCOM--SPACE
ACTIVITIES.
291 1202140F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 11,863 11,863
SPACECOM ACTIVITIES.
293 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 197,388 197,388
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
294 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 61,891 61,891
(SPACE).
297 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 4,566 4,566
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
298 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, 43,292 43,292
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
300 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 10,837 10,837
(SPACE).
301 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 42,440 42,440
302 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 14,428 14,428
INTELLIGENCE.
303 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 72,762 72,762
304 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE 2,653 2,653
CENTER.
306 1203873F BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 15,881 15,881
RADARS.
308 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 49,300 49,300
(SPACE).
309 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 17,834 17,834
OPERATIONS.
310 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 445,302 445,302
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
311 1206770F ENTERPRISE GROUND 138,870 138,870
SERVICES.
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 18,029,506 322,000 18,351,506
..................... Transfer back to base [322,000]
funding.
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 24,529,488 298,033 24,827,521
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 45,616,122 719,653 46,335,775
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH...... 26,000 26,000
2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 432,284 432,284
3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 48,874 10,000 58,874
INITIATIVES.
..................... DEPSCOR.............. [10,000]
4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 54,122 54,122
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 92,074 10,000 102,074
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
..................... Submarine industrial [10,000]
base workforce
training and
education.
6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 30,708 2,000 32,708
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
..................... Aerospace research [2,000]
and education.
7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 45,238 45,238
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH.. 729,300 22,000 751,300
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 19,306 19,306
TECHNOLOGY.
9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 97,771 97,771
11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 52,317 52,317
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 62,200 2,000 64,200
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
..................... Computer modeling of [2,000]
PFAS.
13 0602303E INFORMATION & 442,556 442,556
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 34,588 34,588
DEFENSE.
15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 202,587 202,587
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 15,118 10,000 25,118
..................... Academic cyber [10,000]
institutes.
17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 337,602 337,602
18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 223,976 223,976
TECHNOLOGY.
19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY... 332,192 332,192
20 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 179,096 179,096
DESTRUCTION APPLIED
RESEARCH.
21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 9,580 9,580
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY 40,569 40,569
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 2,049,458 12,000 2,061,458
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,779 25,779
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603121D8Z SO/LIC ADVANCED 5,000 5,000
DEVELOPMENT.
25 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 70,517 70,517
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
26 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 24,970 24,970
TESTING.
28 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 340,065 340,065
DESTRUCTION ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
29 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 14,208 14,208
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
30 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY....... 10,000 10,000
31 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH........ 20,674 20,674
32 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 18,773 18,773
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
33 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 279,741 279,741
SYSTEMS.
34 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 202,606 202,606
TECHNOLOGY.
35 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS..... 19,429 19,429
36 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 37,645 37,645
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
37 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 14,668 14,668
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS--
MHA.
38 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 13,600 13,600
TECHNOLOGY.
40 0603342D8Z DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT 29,398 7,500 36,898
(DIU).
..................... Accelerate Artificial [7,500]
Intelligence
solutions.
41 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION.... 60,000 60,000
42 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 172,486 172,486
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
43 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 159,688 159,688
44 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 12,063 12,063
TECHNOLOGY.
45 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 107,359 -17,500 89,859
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
..................... Program reduction.... [-17,500]
46 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 2,858 2,858
CAPABILITIES.
47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 96,397 96,397
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
48 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 42,834 42,834
PROGRAM.
49 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 80,911 -10,000 70,911
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Program reduction.... [-10,000]
50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 10,817 10,817
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
51 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 66,157 10,000 76,157
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
..................... SERDP................ [10,000]
52 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS 171,771 171,771
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
53 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 4,846 4,846
54 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 128,616 128,616
TECHNOLOGIES.
55 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 232,134 232,134
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
56 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 512,424 512,424
TECHNOLOGY.
57 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 163,903 163,903
58 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 13,723 13,723
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
59 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,111 15,111
INSTITUTE.
60 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 47,147 47,147
PROJECTS.
61 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 19,376 19,376
TECHNOLOGY.
62 0603924D8Z HIGH ENERGY LASER 85,223 85,223
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
63 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 175,574 10,000 185,574
& TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Program increase to [10,000]
support NDS
technologies.
64 0603950D8Z NATIONAL SECURITY 25,000 25,000
INNOVATION NETWORK.
65 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 70,536 70,536
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
66 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 28,907 28,907
68 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 89,154 89,154
DEVELOPMENT.
69 1206310SDA SPACE SCIENCE AND 20,000 20,000
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,742,088 0 3,742,088
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
70 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 42,695 42,695
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
71 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 92,791 92,791
72 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE 5,659 5,659
DATA & INFORMATION
SERVICES.
73 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 66,572 10,000 76,572
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
..................... ESTCP................ [10,000]
74 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 302,761 302,761
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
75 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,156,506 1,156,506
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
SEGMENT.
76 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 83,662 83,662
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
77 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 283,487 283,487
SENSORS.
78 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 571,507 571,507
79 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 377,098 125,000 502,098
..................... Classified........... [125,000]
80 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 727,479 727,479
81 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 564,206 564,206
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
82 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 51,532 51,532
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
83 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 56,161 56,161
INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
CENTER (MDIOC).
84 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 22,424 22,424
85 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 128,156 128,156
(SBX).
86 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 300,000 300,000
PROGRAMS.
87 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 395,924 395,924
TEST.
88 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 554,171 554,171
TARGETS.
89 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 10,820 10,820
90 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 11,316 11,316
91 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,365 3,365
CORROSION PROGRAM.
92 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 303,458 -34,000 269,458
INITIATIVES.
..................... Neutral particle beam [-34,000]
93 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT... 17,816 17,816
95 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE....... 157,425 157,425
96 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 1,312,735 31,000 1,343,735
TECHNOLOGIES.
..................... Hypervelocity Gun [81,000]
Weapon System.
..................... Unjustified growth to [-50,000]
SCO.
97 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 542,421 5,000 547,421
MICROELECTRONICS.
..................... Trusted and assured [5,000]
microelectronics
research.
98 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM 100,957 -50,000 50,957
..................... Uncoordinated [-50,000]
prototyping efforts.
99 0604341D8Z DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT 92,000 92,000
(DIU) PROTOTYPING.
100 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,021 3,021
(DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM
COMMON DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604672C HOMELAND DEFENSE RADAR-- 274,714 274,714
HAWAII (HDR-H).
103 0604673C PACIFIC DISCRIMINATING 6,711 6,711
RADAR.
104 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR 3,751 3,751
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA).
105 0604775BR DEFENSE RAPID INNOVATION 14,021 14,021
PROGRAM.
107 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 20,062 20,062
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
108 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 136,423 136,423
RADAR (LRDR).
109 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 412,363 412,363
INTERCEPTORS.
110 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 25,137 25,137
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
111 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST........... 169,822 169,822
112 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 105,530 105,530
SENSOR TEST.
113 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 38,352 38,352
115 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 98,139 98,139
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
117 0300206R ENTERPRISE INFORMATION 1,600 1,600
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
118 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 3,191 3,191
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
119 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 1,138 1,138
120 1206410SDA SPACE TECHNOLOGY 85,000 -30,000 55,000
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPING.
..................... Missile defense [-30,000]
studies realignment.
121 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & 35,849 35,849
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
122 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 27,565 108,000 135,565
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
..................... HBTSS unfunded [108,000]
requirement.
..................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 9,797,493 165,000 9,962,493
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
123 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 11,276 11,276
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
124 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 107,000 107,000
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
125 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 384,047 384,047
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
126 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 40,102 40,102
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (JTIDS).
127 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 13,100 13,100
DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
128 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 3,070 3,070
DEVELOPMENT.
129 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 7,295 7,295
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
130 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 17,615 17,615
PROGRAM.
131 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 15,653 15,653
INITIATIVES.
132 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 2,378 2,378
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
133 0605075D8Z CMO POLICY AND 1,618 1,618
INTEGRATION.
134 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY 27,944 27,944
INITIATIVES (DAI)--
FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
135 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 6,609 6,609
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
136 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 9,619 9,619
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
137 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 175,032 175,032
MICROELECTRONICS.
138 0303140BL INFORMATION SYSTEMS 425 425
SECURITY PROGRAM.
139 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 1,578 1,578
SYSTEM.
140 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 4,373 4,373
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
141 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM 12,854 12,854
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 841,588 0 841,588
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
142 0603829J JOINT CAPABILITY 13,000 13,000
EXPERIMENTATION.
143 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 9,724 9,724
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
144 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 9,593 9,593
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
145 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 260,267 260,267
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
146 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 30,834 30,834
EVALUATIONS.
147 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT.......... 68,498 68,498
148 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 83,091 6,000 89,091
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
..................... Cyber range [6,000]
development.
149 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 18,079 -5,000 13,079
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
..................... Program reduction.... [-5,000]
150 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 70,038 70,038
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
152 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 37,140 -5,000 32,140
..................... Program reduction.... [-5,000]
153 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 4,759 4,759
SUPPORT--OSD.
154 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 8,307 8,307
SECURITY.
155 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 9,441 9,441
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
156 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 1,700 1,700
(INTELLIGENCE).
157 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 110,363 110,363
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
166 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 3,568 3,568
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
167 0605797D8Z MAINTAINING TECHNOLOGY 19,936 19,936
ADVANTAGE.
168 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 16,875 16,875
ANALYSIS.
169 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 57,716 57,716
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
170 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 34,448 34,448
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
171 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 22,203 22,203
EVALUATION.
172 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 13,208 13,208
173 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ--DEFENSE 3,027 3,027
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CENTER (DTIC).
174 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 8,017 8,017
ASSESSMENTS.
175 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND 3,194 3,194
RESOURCE ANALYSIS.
176 0606589D8W DEFENSE DIGITAL SERVICE 1,000 5,000 6,000
(DDS) DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORT.
..................... Increase............. [5,000]
179 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 3,037 3,037
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
180 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 9,216 9,216
SUPPORT.
183 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 553 553
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
184 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 1,014 1,014
DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
(DMDPO).
185 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED 58,667 58,667
APPLICATIONS.
187 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES 21,081 21,081
AND INNOVATION
INVESTMENTS.
189 0307588D8Z ALGORITHMIC WARFARE CROSS 221,235 221,235
FUNCTIONAL TEAMS.
191 0804768J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 40,073 40,073
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
NON-MHA.
192 0808709SE DEFENSE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 100 100
MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
(DEOMI).
193 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 27,065 27,065
194 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER 3,090 3,090
(JSP).
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 51,471 51,471
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,354,628 1,000 1,355,628
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
195 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 7,945 7,945
SYSTEM (ESS).
196 0604532K JOINT ARTIFICIAL 208,834 208,834
INTELLIGENCE.
197 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,947 1,947
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
198 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 310 310
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
199 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 10,051 38,500 48,551
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
..................... Advanced systems [5,000]
manufacturing.
..................... Composite [15,000]
manufacturing
technologies.
..................... Printed circuit [15,000]
boards.
..................... Rare earth element [3,500]
production.
200 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 12,734 12,734
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
201 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 14,800 14,800
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
202 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 54,023 54,023
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
203 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 4,537 4,537
SYSTEM (PDAS).
204 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 64,122 64,122
210 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 15,798 15,798
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
211 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 11,166 11,166
DCS.
212 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 17,383 17,383
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
214 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 54,516 54,516
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
215 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 67,631 67,631
SECURITY PROGRAM.
216 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 289,080 -1,882 287,198
SECURITY PROGRAM.
..................... Sharkseer transfer... [-1,882]
217 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS 42,796 1,882 44,678
SECURITY PROGRAM.
..................... Sharkseer transfer... [1,882]
218 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 25,218 25,218
CONTROL SYSTEM.
219 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 21,698 21,698
ORGANIZATION.
220 0303228K JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY 18,077 18,077
STACKS (JRSS).
222 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE 44,001 44,001
SERVICES INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
228 0305128V SECURITY AND 2,400 15,000 17,400
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
..................... Local criminal [15,000]
records access.
232 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 6,301 6,301
233 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 21,384 21,384
235 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 6,359 6,359
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
238 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 2,981 2,981
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
241 0305327V INSIDER THREAT........... 1,964 1,964
242 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,221 2,221
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
250 0708012K LOGISTICS SUPPORT 1,361 1,361
ACTIVITIES.
251 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS. 1,770 1,770
252 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY 3,679 3,679
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.
254 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 20,697 20,697
256 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS......... 245,795 8,800 254,595
..................... UPL Future vertical [8,800]
lift.
257 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 15,484 15,484
DEVELOPMENT.
258 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 166,922 166,922
259 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 62,332 62,332
260 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS......... 21,805 21,805
261 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............. 37,377 37,377
262 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 11,150 11,150
263 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS......... 72,626 72,626
264 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 5,363 5,363
ACTIVITIES.
265 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 12,962 12,962
INTELLIGENCE.
266 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 6,158 6,158
300 0604011D8Z NEXT GENERATION 0 25,000 25,000
INFORMATION
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY (5G).
..................... DOD Spectrum Sharing [25,000]
program.
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 4,116,640 426,000 4,542,640
..................... Transfer back to base [426,000]
funding.
..................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 5,832,398 513,300 6,345,698
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 24,346,953 713,300 25,060,253
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 93,291 93,291
EVALUATION.
2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 69,172 69,172
EVALUATION.
3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 58,737 58,737
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
..................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 221,200 0 221,200
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 221,200 221,200
EVAL, DEFENSE.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 102,647,545 1,375,568 104,023,113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
74 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 500 500
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
79 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 3,000 3,000
SURVIVABILITY.
85 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 1,085 1,085
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
95 0604117A MANEUVER--SHORT RANGE AIR 6,000 6,000
DEFENSE (M-SHORAD).
97 0604119A ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT 4,529 4,529
DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
105 0604785A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE 2,000 2,000
(BUDGET ACTIVITY 4).
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 17,114 0 17,114
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
151 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 11,770 11,770
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
159 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 77,420 77,420
DEVELOPMENT.
163 0605203A ARMY SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & 19,527 19,527
DEMONSTRATION.
174 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 3,200 3,200
DEVELOPMENT.
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 111,917 0 111,917
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
200 0606003A COUNTERINTEL AND HUMAN 1,875 1,875
INTEL MODERNIZATION.
...................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT 1,875 0 1,875
SUPPORT.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
238 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 22,904 22,904
ACTIVITIES.
246 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 34,100 34,100
VEHICLES.
247 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 14,000 14,000
SYSTEMS.
252 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 2,214 2,214
INTELLIGENCE.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 73,218 0 73,218
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 204,124 0 204,124
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
28 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 2,400 2,400
APPLICATIONS.
38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 22,000 22,000
57 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 14,178 14,178
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
69 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 1,428 1,428
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 40,006 0 40,006
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
143 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 1,122 1,122
& CONTROL).
...................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 1,122 0 1,122
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
228 0206313M MARINE CORPS 15,000 15,000
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 108,282 108,282
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 123,282 0 123,282
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 164,410 0 164,410
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
48 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 26,450 26,450
72 1206857F SPACE RAPID CAPABILITIES 17,885 17,885
OFFICE.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 44,335 0 44,335
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
177 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED 4,000 4,000
ELECTRONIC WARFARE.
217 0208288F INTEL DATA APPLICATIONS.. 1,200 1,200
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 400,713 -322,000 78,713
...................... Transfer back to base [-322,000]
funding.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 405,913 -322,000 83,913
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 450,248 -322,000 128,248
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... APPLIED RESEARCH
10 0602134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT 1,677 1,677
ADVANCED STUDIES.
...................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 1,677 0 1,677
......................
...................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
25 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 25,230 25,230
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
27 0603134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT 49,528 49,528
SIMULATION.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 74,758 0 74,758
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
94 0604134BR COUNTER IMPROVISED-THREAT 113,590 113,590
DEMONSTRATION, PROTOTYPE
DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING.
...................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 113,590 0 113,590
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
258 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 726 726
259 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 6,000 6,000
261 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............. 5,000 5,000
999 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 626,199 -426,000 200,199
...................... Transfer back to base [-426,000]
funding.
...................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 637,925 -426,000 211,925
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 827,950 -426,000 401,950
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 1,646,732 -748,000 898,732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 0 1,735,922 1,735,922
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,735,922]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 0 127,815 127,815
Transfer back to base funding................... [127,815]
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 0 716,356 716,356
Transfer back to base funding................... [716,356]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 0 890,891 890,891
Transfer back to base funding................... [890,891]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 0 1,232,477 1,232,477
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,232,477]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 0 1,355,606 1,355,606
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,355,606]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 408,031 3,474,284 3,882,315
Transfer back to base funding................... [3,474,284]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 417,069 29,200 446,269
UPL MDTF INDOPACOM.............................. [29,200]
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 0 1,633,327 1,633,327
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,633,327]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 0 7,951,473 7,951,473
Historical underexecution....................... [-46,000]
Revised MHPI cost share......................... [-50,460]
Transfer back to base funding................... [8,047,933]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 4,326,840 4,326,840
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 405,612 405,612
160 US AFRICA COMMAND................................... 251,511 251,511
170 US EUROPEAN COMMAND................................. 146,358 7,800 154,158
JIOCEUR JAC Molesworth.......................... [7,800]
180 US SOUTHERN COMMAND................................. 191,840 191,840
190 US FORCES KOREA..................................... 57,603 57,603
200 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS........ 423,156 423,156
210 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSECURITY................ 551,185 551,185
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 7,179,205 19,155,151 26,334,356

MOBILIZATION
220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.................................. 380,577 380,577
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 362,942 362,942
240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS............................. 4,637 4,637
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 748,156 0 748,156

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
250 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 157,175 157,175
260 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 55,739 55,739
270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING........................... 62,300 62,300
280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.............. 538,357 538,357
290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 969,813 969,813
300 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 1,234,049 1,234,049
310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 218,338 218,338
320 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 554,659 554,659
330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 716,056 -80,000 636,056
Unjustified growth for advertising.............. [-70,000]
Unjustified growth for recruiting............... [-10,000]
340 EXAMINING........................................... 185,034 185,034
350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 214,275 214,275
360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 147,647 147,647
370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS............... 173,812 173,812
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 5,227,254 -80,000 5,147,254

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 559,229 559,229
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 929,944 929,944
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 629,981 629,981
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 458,771 458,771
430 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 428,768 428,768
440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 1,512,736 1,512,736
450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 272,738 272,738
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 391,869 -28,000 363,869
Historical underexecution....................... [-28,000]
470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 1,901,165 1,901,165
480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.............................. 198,765 -15,000 183,765
Historical underexecution....................... [-15,000]
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 226,248 226,248
500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS............ 315,489 315,489
510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS................. 427,254 427,254
520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS...................... 43,248 43,248
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,347,053 1,347,053
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 9,643,258 -43,000 9,600,258

UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 103,800 103,800
Cyber operations-peculiar capability development [3,000]
projects........................................
Single family home pilot program................ [1,000]
THAAD sustainment program transfer from MDA..... [99,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 103,800 103,800

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 22,797,873 19,135,951 41,933,824

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 0 11,927 11,927
Transfer back to base funding................... [11,927]
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 0 533,015 533,015
Transfer back to base funding................... [533,015]
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 0 119,517 119,517
Transfer back to base funding................... [119,517]
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 0 550,468 550,468
Transfer back to base funding................... [550,468]
050 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 0 86,670 86,670
Transfer back to base funding................... [86,670]
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 390,061 390,061
070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 101,890 101,890
080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 0 48,503 48,503
Transfer back to base funding................... [48,503]
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 0 598,907 598,907
Transfer back to base funding................... [598,907]
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 444,376 444,376
110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 22,095 22,095
120 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS........ 3,288 3,288
130 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSECURITY................ 7,655 7,655
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 969,365 1,949,007 2,918,372

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
140 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 14,533 14,533
150 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 17,231 17,231
160 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 14,304 14,304
170 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 6,129 6,129
180 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 58,541 58,541
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 110,738 0 110,738

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 1,080,103 1,949,007 3,029,110

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 0 805,671 805,671
Transfer back to base funding................... [805,671]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 0 195,334 195,334
Transfer back to base funding................... [195,334]
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 0 771,048 771,048
Transfer back to base funding................... [771,048]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 0 94,726 94,726
Transfer back to base funding................... [94,726]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 0 33,696 33,696
Transfer back to base funding................... [33,696]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 0 981,819 981,819
Transfer back to base funding................... [981,819]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 743,206 743,206
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 50,963 50,963
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 0 258,278 258,278
Transfer back to base funding................... [258,278]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 0 1,153,076 1,153,076
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,153,076]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 1,113,475 7,200 1,120,675
Damage assessment............................... [7,200]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 1,001,042 1,001,042
130 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS........ 8,448 8,448
140 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSECURITY................ 7,768 7,768
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 2,924,902 4,300,848 7,225,750

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 9,890 9,890
160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 71,070 71,070
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 68,213 68,213
180 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 8,628 8,628
190 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 250,376 -3,000 247,376
Unjustified growth for marketing................ [-1,500]
Unjustified growth for recruiting............... [-1,500]
200 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 2,676 2,676
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 410,853 -3,000 407,853

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 3,335,755 4,297,848 7,633,603

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 0 2,877,800 2,877,800
Transfer back to base funding................... [2,877,800]
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.................................. 2,284,828 2,284,828
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 0 59,299 59,299
Transfer back to base funding................... [59,299]
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 155,896 155,896
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 719,107 719,107
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 0 1,154,181 1,154,181
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,154,181]
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 60,402 60,402
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 1,241,421 1,241,421
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 0 4,097,262 4,097,262
Transfer back to base funding................... [4,097,262]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 1,031,792 1,031,792
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 0 8,875,298 8,875,298
Transfer back to base funding................... [8,061,298]
UPL SSN and Ship maintenance increase........... [814,000]
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 0 2,073,641 2,073,641
Transfer back to base funding................... [2,073,641]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE........ 1,378,856 1,378,856
140 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 276,245 276,245
150 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 675,209 675,209
160 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 389,516 389,516
170 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 1,536,310 1,536,310
180 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.. 161,579 161,579
190 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 59,521 59,521
200 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 93,978 5,000 98,978
Posture site assessments INDOPACOM.............. [5,000]
210 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS............. 8,641 8,641
220 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 496,385 496,385
230 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE............................. 1,423,339 1,423,339
240 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 924,069 924,069
250 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 540,210 540,210
260 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 1,131,627 1,131,627
270 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 3,029,634 3,029,634
280 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 0 4,433,783 4,433,783
Revised MHPI cost share......................... [18,840]
Transfer back to base funding................... [4,414,943]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 17,618,565 23,576,264 41,194,829

MOBILIZATION
290 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE....................... 942,902 942,902
300 READY RESERVE FORCE................................. 352,044 352,044
310 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 427,555 427,555
320 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 137,597 137,597
330 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 24,604 24,604
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,884,702 0 1,884,702

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
340 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 150,765 150,765
350 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 11,584 11,584
360 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..................... 159,133 159,133
370 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 911,316 911,316
380 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 185,211 185,211
390 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 267,224 267,224
400 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 209,252 -20,000 189,252
Unjustified growth.............................. [-20,000]
410 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 88,902 88,902
420 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 67,492 67,492
430 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 55,164 55,164
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 2,106,043 -20,000 2,086,043

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
440 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,143,358 -51,000 1,092,358
Decrease........................................ [-1,000]
Unjustified audit growth........................ [-50,000]
450 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 178,342 178,342
460 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 418,413 418,413
490 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 157,465 157,465
510 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT.......... 485,397 5,000 490,397
REPO............................................ [5,000]
520 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT............... 654,137 654,137
530 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES................. 718,061 718,061
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 588,235 3,300 591,535
Transfer back to base funding................... [3,300]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 4,343,408 -42,700 4,300,708

UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 3,000 3,000
Cyber operations-peculiar capability development [3,000]
projects........................................
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 3,000 3,000

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 25,952,718 23,516,564 49,469,282

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 0 968,224 968,224
Transfer back to base funding................... [968,224]
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 1,278,533 1,278,533
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 0 232,991 232,991
Transfer back to base funding................... [232,991]
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 0 100,396 100,396
Transfer back to base funding................... [100,396]
050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 203,580 203,580
060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 1,115,742 443,292 1,559,034
Transfer back to base funding................... [443,292]
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 0 2,253,776 2,253,776
Transfer back to base funding................... [2,253,776]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 2,597,855 3,998,679 6,596,534

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
080 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 21,240 21,240
090 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 1,168 1,168
100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 106,601 106,601
110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 49,095 49,095
120 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 407,315 407,315
130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 210,475 210,475
140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 42,810 42,810
150 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 25,183 25,183
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 863,887 0 863,887

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 29,894 29,894
170 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 384,352 384,352
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 52,057 52,057
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 466,303 0 466,303

UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 3,000 3,000
Cyber operations-peculiar capability development [3,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 3,000 3,000

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 3,928,045 4,001,679 7,929,724

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 0 654,220 654,220
Transfer back to base funding................... [654,220]
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 8,767 8,767
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 0 108,236 108,236
Transfer back to base funding................... [108,236]
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 463 463
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 26,014 26,014
060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 583 583
070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 17,883 17,883
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 128,079 128,079
090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 356 356
100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 26,133 26,133
110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 35,397 35,397
120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 0 101,376 101,376
Transfer back to base funding................... [101,376]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 243,675 863,832 1,107,507

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,888 1,888
140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 12,778 12,778
150 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 2,943 2,943
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 17,609 0 17,609

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 261,284 863,832 1,125,116

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 0 106,484 106,484
Transfer back to base funding................... [106,484]
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 0 18,429 18,429
Transfer back to base funding................... [18,429]
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 47,516 47,516
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 0 106,073 106,073
Transfer back to base funding................... [106,073]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 47,516 230,986 278,502

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 13,574 13,574
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 13,574 0 13,574

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 61,090 230,986 292,076

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 729,127 729,127
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,318,770 1,318,770
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 1,486,790 1,486,790
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 0 3,334,792 3,334,792
Transfer back to base funding................... [3,334,792]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 3,675,824 466,611 4,142,435
Transfer back to base funding................... [466,611]
060 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT.............................. 0 228,811 228,811
Transfer back to base funding................... [228,811]
070 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 0 8,329,364 8,329,364
Transfer back to base funding................... [8,329,364]
080 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM................................. 0 4,048,773 4,048,773
Transfer back to base funding................... [4,048,773]
090 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 0 7,191,582 7,191,582
Revised MHPI cost share......................... [-32,400]
Transfer back to base funding................... [7,223,982]
100 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 964,553 964,553
110 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 1,032,307 1,032,307
120 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 670,076 670,076
140 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 179,980 179,980
150 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 467,990 467,990
160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD................................... 184,655 184,655
170 US STRATCOM......................................... 478,357 478,357
180 US CYBERCOM......................................... 323,121 24,800 347,921
Accelerate development Cyber National Mission [1,500]
Force capabilities..............................
Cyber National Mission Force Mobile & Modular [5,300]
Hunt Forward Kit................................
ETERNALDARKNESS................................. [18,000]
190 US CENTCOM.......................................... 160,989 160,989
200 US SOCOM............................................ 6,225 6,225
210 US TRANSCOM......................................... 544 544
220 CENTCOM CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT...................... 2,073 2,073
230 USSPACECOM.......................................... 70,588 70,588
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,322,944 1,322,944
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 13,074,913 23,624,733 36,699,646

MOBILIZATION
240 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 1,158,142 1,158,142
250 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 138,672 138,672
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,296,814 0 1,296,814

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
260 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 130,835 130,835
270 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 26,021 26,021
280 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 121,391 121,391
290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 454,539 454,539
300 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 600,565 600,565
310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 282,788 282,788
320 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 123,988 123,988
330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 167,731 -6,000 161,731
Unjustified growth.............................. [-6,000]
340 EXAMINING........................................... 4,576 4,576
350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 211,911 211,911
360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 219,021 219,021
370 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 62,092 62,092
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 2,405,458 -6,000 2,399,458

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
380 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 664,926 664,926
390 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 101,483 101,483
400 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 892,480 892,480
410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 152,532 152,532
420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 1,254,089 1,254,089
430 CIVIL AIR PATROL.................................... 30,070 30,070
460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 136,110 136,110
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,269,624 1,269,624
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 4,501,314 0 4,501,314

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, SPACE FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 72,436 72,436
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 72,436 0 72,436

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, SPACE FORCE.......... 72,436 0 72,436

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 21,278,499 23,621,733 44,900,232

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,781,413 1,781,413
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 209,650 209,650
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 0 494,235 494,235
Transfer back to base funding................... [494,235]
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 128,746 128,746
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 0 256,512 256,512
Transfer back to base funding................... [256,512]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 0 414,626 414,626
Transfer back to base funding................... [414,626]
070 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 1,673 1,673
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 2,121,482 1,165,373 3,286,855

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
080 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 69,436 69,436
090 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 22,124 22,124
100 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).............. 10,946 10,946
110 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................ 7,009 7,009
120 AUDIOVISUAL......................................... 448 448
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.. 109,963 0 109,963

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 2,231,445 1,165,373 3,396,818

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................. 2,497,967 2,497,967
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 600,377 600,377
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 0 879,467 879,467
Transfer back to base funding................... [879,467]
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 400,734 400,734
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 0 1,299,089 1,299,089
Transfer back to base funding................... [1,299,089]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 0 911,775 911,775
Transfer back to base funding................... [911,775]
070 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT.............................. 0 24,742 24,742
Transfer back to base funding................... [24,742]
080 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 25,507 25,507
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,524,585 3,115,073 6,639,658

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
090 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 47,215 47,215
100 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 40,356 40,356
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES. 87,571 0 87,571

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 3,612,156 3,115,073 6,727,229

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 409,542 409,542
020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF--CE2T2........................ 579,179 579,179
030 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF--CYBER........................ 24,598 24,598
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND COMBAT DEVELOPMENT 1,075,762 1,075,762
ACTIVITIES.........................................
050 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES.... 14,409 14,409
060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND INTELLIGENCE............. 501,747 501,747
070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND MAINTENANCE.............. 559,300 559,300
080 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND MANAGEMENT/OPERATIONAL 177,928 177,928
HEADQUARTERS.......................................
090 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT...... 925,262 925,262
100 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND THEATER FORCES........... 2,764,738 2,764,738
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 7,032,465 0 7,032,465

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
120 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY...................... 180,250 180,250
130 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 100,610 100,610
140 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 33,967 33,967
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 314,827 0 314,827

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
160 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS............................. 165,707 29,300 195,007
IRT Increase.................................... [14,300]
Starbase........................................ [15,000]
180 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 627,467 627,467
190 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY--CYBER................ 3,362 3,362
200 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 1,438,068 1,438,068
210 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY--CYBER........... 24,391 24,391
220 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY.................... 892,438 892,438
230 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 2,012,885 -5,000 2,007,885
MilCloud........................................ [-5,000]
240 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY--CYBER........... 601,223 35,137 636,360
Sharkseer transfer.............................. [35,137]
270 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 34,632 34,632
280 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................ 415,699 415,699
290 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 202,792 202,792
300 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY................. 144,881 144,881
310 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 696,884 696,884
Assessment, monitoring, and evaluation.......... [11,000]
Security cooperation account.................... [-11,000]
320 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................ 889,664 10,000 899,664
Consolidated Adjudication Facility.............. [10,000]
340 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE--CYBER..................... 9,220 9,220
360 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER................ 3,000 3,000
370 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......... 35,626 35,626
380 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 568,133 568,133
400 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY--CYBER.............. 13,339 13,339
410 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 2,932,226 50,000 2,982,226
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities [10,000]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent [40,000]
students........................................
420 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.............................. 522,529 -99,800 422,729
THAAD program transfer to Army.................. [-99,800]
450 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT....................... 59,513 59,513
460 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 1,604,738 74,000 1,678,738
Bien Hoa dioxin cleanup......................... [15,000]
CDC study....................................... [10,000]
Emerging contaminants........................... [1,000]
Industrial policy implementation of EO13806..... [15,000]
Interstate compacts for licensure and [4,000]
credentialing...................................
National Commission on Military Aviation Safety. [3,000]
National Commission on Military, National, and [1,000]
Public Service..................................
Readiness and Environmental Protection [25,000]
Integration.....................................
470 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE--CYBER........... 48,783 48,783
480 SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY............................ 44,750 44,750
500 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 324,001 5,000 329,001
Defense Digital Service Hires................... [5,000]
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 15,736,098 45,363 15,781,461
Sharkseer transfer.............................. [-35,137]
Transfer back to base funding................... [80,500]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 30,052,049 144,000 30,196,049

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 37,399,341 144,000 37,543,341

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE... 14,771 14,771
SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 14,771 0 14,771
DEFENSE............................................

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID
010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID....... 108,600 108,600
SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC 108,600 0 108,600
AID................................................

COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
010 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION........................ 338,700 338,700
SUBTOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION............... 338,700 0 338,700

ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD
010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................ 400,000 400,000
SUBTOTAL ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD....................... 400,000 0 400,000

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY..................... 207,518 207,518
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY............ 207,518 0 207,518

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY..................... 335,932 335,932
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY............ 335,932 0 335,932

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................ 302,744 302,744
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE....... 302,744 0 302,744

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.................. 9,105 9,105
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE......... 9,105 0 9,105

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES....... 216,499 216,499
SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED 216,499 0 216,499
SITES..............................................

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.................. 1,933,869 0 1,933,869

UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED
999 UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -590,000 -590,000
Foreign currency fluctuation fund reduction..... [-607,000]
JROTC........................................... [25,000]
Printing inefficiencies......................... [-8,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.............................. 0 -590,000 -590,000

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED................................. 0 -590,000 -590,000

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE....................... 123,944,614 81,452,046 205,396,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 3,146,796 -1,735,922 1,410,874
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,735,922]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 127,815 -127,815 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-127,815]
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 742,858 -716,356 26,502
Transfer back to base funding................... [-716,356]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 3,165,381 -890,891 2,274,490
Transfer back to base funding................... [-890,891]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 1,368,765 -1,232,477 136,288
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,232,477]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 1,655,846 -1,355,606 300,240
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,355,606]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 6,889,293 -3,474,284 3,415,009
Transfer back to base funding................... [-3,474,284]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 29,985 29,985
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 1,720,258 -1,633,327 86,931
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,633,327]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 8,163,639 -8,047,933 115,706
Transfer back to base funding................... [-8,047,933]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 72,657 72,657
130 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES............................... 6,397,586 6,397,586
140 COMMANDER'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM.............. 5,000 5,000
150 RESET............................................... 1,048,896 1,048,896
160 US AFRICA COMMAND................................... 203,174 203,174
170 US EUROPEAN COMMAND................................. 173,676 173,676
200 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS........ 188,529 188,529
210 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES--CYBERSECURITY................ 5,682 5,682
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 35,105,836 -19,214,611 15,891,225

MOBILIZATION
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 131,954 131,954
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 131,954 0 131,954

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 721,014 721,014
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 66,845 66,845
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 9,309 9,309
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 23,653 23,653
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 109,019 109,019
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 251,355 251,355
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,568,564 1,568,564
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 2,749,759 0 2,749,759

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 37,987,549 -19,214,611 18,772,938

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 11,927 -11,927 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-11,927]
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 553,455 -533,015 20,440
Transfer back to base funding................... [-533,015]
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 119,517 -119,517 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-119,517]
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 550,468 -550,468 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-550,468]
050 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 86,670 -86,670 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-86,670]
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 689 689
080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 48,503 -48,503 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-48,503]
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 615,370 -598,907 16,463
Transfer back to base funding................... [-598,907]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 1,986,599 -1,949,007 37,592

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 1,986,599 -1,949,007 37,592

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 851,567 -805,671 45,896
Transfer back to base funding................... [-805,671]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 195,514 -195,334 180
Transfer back to base funding................... [-195,334]
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 774,030 -771,048 2,982
Transfer back to base funding................... [-771,048]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 95,274 -94,726 548
Transfer back to base funding................... [-94,726]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 33,696 -33,696 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-33,696]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 991,048 -981,819 9,229
Transfer back to base funding................... [-981,819]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,584 1,584
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 258,278 -258,278 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-258,278]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 1,175,139 -1,153,076 22,063
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,153,076]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 606 606
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 4,376,736 -4,293,648 83,088

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 203 203
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 203 0 203

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 4,376,939 -4,293,648 83,291

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY
090 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 1,313,047 1,313,047
100 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 37,152 37,152
110 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 120,868 120,868
120 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 118,591 118,591
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY....................... 1,589,658 0 1,589,658

AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE
130 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 422,806 422,806
140 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 2,358 2,358
150 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 127,081 127,081
160 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 108,112 108,112
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE..................... 660,357 0 660,357

AFGHAN AIR FORCE
170 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 893,829 893,829
180 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 8,611 8,611
190 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 566,967 566,967
200 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 356,108 356,108
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN AIR FORCE........................... 1,825,515 0 1,825,515

AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES
210 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 437,909 437,909
220 INFRASTRUCTURE...................................... 21,131 21,131
230 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 153,806 153,806
240 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 115,602 115,602
SUBTOTAL AFGHAN SPECIAL SECURITY FORCES............. 728,448 0 728,448

TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.............. 4,803,978 0 4,803,978

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 5,682,156 -2,877,800 2,804,356
Transfer back to base funding................... [-2,877,800]
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 60,115 -59,299 816
Transfer back to base funding................... [-59,299]
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 9,582 9,582
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 197,262 197,262
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 1,322,427 -1,154,181 168,246
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,154,181]
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 3,594 3,594
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 10,618 10,618
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 5,582,370 -4,097,262 1,485,108
Transfer back to base funding................... [-4,097,262]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 20,334 20,334
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 10,426,913 -8,061,298 2,365,615
Transfer back to base funding................... [-8,061,298]
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 2,073,641 -2,073,641 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-2,073,641]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE........ 58,092 58,092
140 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 18,000 18,000
150 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 16,984 16,984
160 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 29,382 29,382
170 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 608,870 608,870
180 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.. 7,799 7,799
200 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 24,800 24,800
220 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 363 363
240 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 486,188 486,188
250 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 12,189 12,189
270 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 68,667 68,667
280 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 4,634,042 -4,414,943 219,099
Transfer back to base funding................... [-4,414,943]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 31,354,388 -22,738,424 8,615,964

MOBILIZATION
320 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 17,580 17,580
330 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 190,000 190,000
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 207,580 0 207,580

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
370 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 52,161 52,161
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 52,161 0 52,161

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
440 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 8,475 8,475
460 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 7,653 7,653
490 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 70,683 70,683
520 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT............... 11,130 11,130
530 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES................. 1,559 1,559
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 21,054 -3,300 17,754
Transfer back to base funding................... [-3,300]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 120,554 -3,300 117,254

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 31,734,683 -22,741,724 8,992,959

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 1,682,877 -968,224 714,653
Transfer back to base funding................... [-968,224]
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 232,508 232,508
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 287,092 -232,991 54,101
Transfer back to base funding................... [-232,991]
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 100,396 -100,396 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-100,396]
050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 2,000 2,000
060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 443,292 -103,292 340,000
Disaster recovery increase...................... [340,000]
Transfer back to base funding................... [-443,292]
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 2,278,346 -2,253,776 24,570
Transfer back to base funding................... [-2,253,776]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 5,026,511 -3,658,679 1,367,832

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
120 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 30,459 30,459
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 30,459 0 30,459

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 61,400 61,400
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 5,100 5,100
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 66,500 0 66,500

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 5,123,470 -3,658,679 1,464,791

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 654,220 -654,220 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-654,220]
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 510 510
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 119,864 -108,236 11,628
Transfer back to base funding................... [-108,236]
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 10,898 10,898
120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 101,376 -101,376 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-101,376]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 886,868 -863,832 23,036

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 886,868 -863,832 23,036

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 114,111 -106,484 7,627
Transfer back to base funding................... [-106,484]
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 18,429 -18,429 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-18,429]
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 107,153 -106,073 1,080
Transfer back to base funding................... [-106,073]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 239,693 -230,986 8,707

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 239,693 -230,986 8,707

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 163,632 163,632
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,049,170 1,049,170
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 111,808 111,808
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 3,743,491 -3,334,792 408,699
Transfer back to base funding................... [-3,334,792]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 613,875 -126,611 487,264
Disaster recovery increase...................... [340,000]
Transfer back to base funding................... [-466,611]
060 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT.............................. 238,872 -228,811 10,061
Transfer back to base funding................... [-228,811]
070 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 9,282,958 -8,329,364 953,594
Transfer back to base funding................... [-8,329,364]
080 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM................................. 6,544,039 -4,048,773 2,495,266
Transfer back to base funding................... [-4,048,773]
090 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 8,762,102 -7,223,982 1,538,120
Transfer back to base funding................... [-7,223,982]
100 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 13,863 13,863
110 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 272,020 272,020
120 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES............................... 17,657 17,657
130 TACTICAL INTEL AND OTHER SPECIAL ACTIVITIES......... 36,098 36,098
140 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 391 391
150 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 39,990 39,990
160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD................................... 725 725
170 US STRATCOM......................................... 926 926
180 US CYBERCOM......................................... 35,189 35,189
190 US CENTCOM.......................................... 163,015 163,015
200 US SOCOM............................................ 19,000 19,000
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 31,108,821 -23,292,333 7,816,488

MOBILIZATION
240 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 1,271,439 1,271,439
250 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 109,682 109,682
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION............................... 1,381,121 0 1,381,121

TRAINING AND RECRUITING
260 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 200 200
270 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 352 352
290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 26,802 26,802
300 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 844 844
310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 1,199 1,199
320 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 1,320 1,320
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING.................... 30,717 0 30,717

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
380 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 164,701 164,701
390 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 11,608 11,608
400 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 4,814 4,814
410 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 145,204 145,204
420 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 98,841 98,841
460 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 29,890 29,890
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 52,995 52,995
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES................... 508,053 0 508,053

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 33,028,712 -23,292,333 9,736,379

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 518,423 -494,235 24,188
Transfer back to base funding................... [-494,235]
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 256,512 -256,512 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-256,512]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 420,196 -414,626 5,570
Transfer back to base funding................... [-414,626]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 1,195,131 -1,165,373 29,758

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 1,195,131 -1,165,373 29,758

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 3,666 3,666
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE................ 946,411 -879,467 66,944
Transfer back to base funding................... [-879,467]
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT..... 1,392,709 -1,299,089 93,620
Transfer back to base funding................... [-1,299,089]
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 924,454 -911,775 12,679
Transfer back to base funding................... [-911,775]
070 CYBERSPACE SUSTAINMENT.............................. 24,742 -24,742 0
Transfer back to base funding................... [-24,742]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,291,982 -3,115,073 176,909

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 3,291,982 -3,115,073 176,909

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 21,866 21,866
020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF--CE2T2........................ 6,634 6,634
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND COMBAT DEVELOPMENT 1,121,580 1,121,580
ACTIVITIES.........................................
060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND INTELLIGENCE............. 1,328,201 1,328,201
070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND MAINTENANCE.............. 399,845 399,845
090 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT...... 138,458 138,458
100 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND THEATER FORCES........... 808,729 808,729
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES........................... 3,825,313 0 3,825,313
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
180 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 1,810 1,810
200 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 21,723 21,723
230 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 81,133 81,133
240 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY--CYBER........... 3,455 3,455
270 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 196,124 196,124
290 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 14,377 14,377
310 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 1,927,217 50,000 1,977,217
Security cooperation account, unjustified growth [-100,000]
Transfer from CTEF Iraq......................... [100,000]
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.......... [50,000]
380 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 317,558 317,558
410 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 31,620 31,620
460 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 16,666 16,666
500 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 6,331 6,331
9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 2,005,285 -80,500 1,924,785
Transfer back to base funding................... [-80,500]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................. 4,623,299 -30,500 4,592,799
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 8,448,612 -30,500 8,418,112

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE....................... 133,104,216 -80,555,766 52,548,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 143,476,503 -918,980 142,557,523
Historical under execution..................... [-918,980]
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.......... 143,476,503 -918,980 142,557,523

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 7,816,815 7,816,815
SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 7,816,815 0 7,816,815
CONTRIBUTIONS......................................

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................ 151,293,318 -918,980 150,374,338
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2020 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 4,485,808 4,485,808
SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.......... 4,485,808 0 4,485,808

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL............................ 4,485,808 0 4,485,808
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
010 INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS........................... 57,467 57,467
020 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY......................... 32,130 32,130
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 89,597 0 89,597

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
020 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.......................... 92,499 10,000 102,499
Energy optimization initiatives............. [10,000]
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 92,499 10,000 102,499

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
010 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEF.................... 49,085 49,085
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 49,085 0 49,085

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA...................... 995,030 995,030
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 995,030 0 995,030

WCF, DEF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE & SECURITY AGENCY
010 DEFENSE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY AGENCY. 200,000 200,000
SUBTOTAL WCF, DEF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE & SECURITY 200,000 0 200,000
AGENCY.........................................

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 1,426,211 10,000 1,436,211

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 107,351 107,351
2 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION..... 875,930 875,930
3 PROCUREMENT..................................... 2,218 2,218
SUBTOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 985,499 0 985,499

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....... 985,499 0 985,499

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 COUNTER-NARCOTICS SUPPORT....................... 581,739 581,739
SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 581,739 0 581,739
ACTIVITIES.....................................

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM................... 120,922 120,922
SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.......... 120,922 0 120,922

NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM
030 NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM............. 91,370 91,370
SUBTOTAL NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG PROGRAM.... 91,370 0 91,370

NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG SCHOOLS
040 NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG SCHOOLS............. 5,371 5,371
SUBTOTAL NATIONAL GUARD COUNTER-DRUG SCHOOLS.... 5,371 0 5,371

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 799,402 0 799,402
DEF............................................

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE....................... 359,022 359,022
020 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE--CYBER................ 1,179 1,179
030 RDT&E........................................... 2,965 2,965
040 PROCUREMENT..................................... 333 333
SUBTOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 363,499 0 363,499

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 363,499 0 363,499

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 9,570,615 9,570,615
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 15,041,006 11,000 15,052,006
Contraceptive cost-sharing.................. [11,000]
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 1,975,536 1,975,536
040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 2,004,588 2,004,588
050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 333,246 333,246
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 793,810 793,810
070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS.................. 2,093,289 2,093,289
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................ 31,812,090 11,000 31,823,090

RDT&E
080 R&D RESEARCH.................................... 12,621 12,621
090 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT...................... 84,266 84,266
100 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................ 279,766 279,766
110 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION.................... 128,055 128,055
120 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT..................... 143,527 143,527
130 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT...................... 67,219 67,219
140 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT.................... 16,819 16,819
SUBTOTAL RDT&E.................................. 732,273 0 732,273

PROCUREMENT
150 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING......................... 26,135 26,135
160 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................ 225,774 225,774
170 PROC JOINT OPERATIONAL MEDICINE INFORMATION 314 314
SYSTEM.........................................
180 PROC MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM--DESKTOP TO 73,010 73,010
DATACENTER.....................................
190 PROC DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 129,091 129,091
MODERNIZATION..................................
SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT............................ 454,324 0 454,324

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 32,998,687 11,000 33,009,687

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 36,573,298 21,000 36,594,298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
020 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY......................... 20,100 20,100
SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 20,100 0 20,100

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 20,100 0 20,100

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 COUNTER-NARCOTICS SUPPORT....................... 163,596 163,596
SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 163,596 0 163,596
ACTIVITIES.....................................

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 163,596 0 163,596
DEF............................................

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
010 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE......................... 24,254 24,254
SUBTOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 24,254 0 24,254

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 24,254 0 24,254

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 57,459 57,459
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 287,487 287,487
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 2,800 2,800
SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................ 347,746 0 347,746

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 347,746 0 347,746

COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF)
COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF)
010 IRAQ............................................ 745,000 -100,000 645,000
Transfer to DSCA Security Cooperation....... [-100,000]
020 SYRIA........................................... 300,000 300,000
SUBTOTAL COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 1,045,000 -100,000 945,000
(CTEF).........................................

TOTAL COUNTER ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF).. 1,045,000 -100,000 945,000

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 1,600,696 -100,000 1,500,696
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2020 Senate
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY
Army Alabama Redstone Arsenal Aircraft and Flight 38,000 38,000
Equipment Building.
Army Colorado Fort Carson Company Operations 71,000 71,000
Facility.
Army Georgia Fort Gordon Cyber Instructional Fac 107,000 -40,000 67,000
(Admin/Command).
Army Georgia Hunter Army Airfield Aircraft Maintenance 62,000 62,000
Hangar.
Army Hawaii Fort Shafter Command and Control 60,000 60,000
Facility, Incr 5.
Army Honduras Soto Cano AB Aircraft Maintenance 34,000 34,000
Hangar.
Army Japan Kadena Air Base Vehicle Maintenance Shop.. 0 15,000 15,000
Army Kentucky Fort Campbell General Purpose 51,000 51,000
Maintenance Shop.
Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Automated Infantry Platoon 7,100 7,100
Battle Course.
Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Easements................. 3,200 3,200
Army Massachusetts Soldier Systems Center Human Engineering Lab..... 50,000 50,000
Natick
Army Michigan Detroit Arsenal Substation................ 24,000 24,000
Army New York Fort Drum Railhead.................. 0 21,000 21,000
Army New York Fort Drum Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 23,000 23,000
Hangar.
Army North Carolina Fort Bragg Dining Facility........... 12,500 12,500
Army Oklahoma Fort Sill Adv Individual Training 73,000 73,000
Barracks Cplx, Ph2.
Army Pennsylvania Carlisle Barracks General Instruction 98,000 98,000
Building.
Army South Carolina Fort Jackson Reception Complex, Ph2.... 54,000 54,000
Army Texas Corpus Christi Army Powertrain Facility 86,000 86,000
Depot (Machine Shop).
Army Texas Fort Hood Vehicle Bridge............ 0 18,500 18,500
Army Texas Fort Hood Barracks.................. 32,000 32,000
Army Virginia Fort Belvoir Secure Operations and 60,000 60,000
Admin Facility.
Army Virginia Joint Base Langley- Adv Individual Training 55,000 55,000
Eustis Barracks Cplx, Ph4.
Army Washington Joint Base Lewis- Information Systems 46,000 46,000
McChord Facility.
Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 70,600 70,600
Locations Construction.
Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support....... 31,000 31,000
Locations
Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 94,099 94,099
Locations
Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Worldwide 211,000 -211,000 0
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL ARMY 1,453,499 -196,500 1,256,999
....................... ......................
NAVY
Navy Arizona MCAS Yuma Bachelor Enlisted 0 99,600 99,600
Quarters--2+2 Replacement.
Navy Arizona Yuma Hangar 95 Renovation & 90,160 90,160
Addition.
Navy Australia Darwin Aircraft Parking Apron.... 0 50,000 50,000
Navy Bahrain Island SW Asia Electrical System Upgrade. 53,360 53,360
Navy California Camp Pendleton I MEF Consolidated 113,869 -90,869 23,000
Information Center.
Navy California Camp Pendleton 62 Area Mess Hall and 71,700 71,700
Consolidated Warehouse.
Navy California China Lake Runway & Taxiway Extension 64,500 64,500
Navy California Coronado Aircraft Paint Complex.... 0 79,000 79,000
Navy California Coronado Aircraft Paint Complex.... 79,100 79,100
Navy California Coronado Navy V-22 Hangar.......... 86,830 86,830
Navy California MCAS Miramar Child Development Center.. 0 37,400 37,400
Navy California MCRD San Diego PMO Facility Replacement.. 0 9,900 9,900
Navy California San Diego Pier 8 Replacement (INC).. 59,353 59,353
Navy California Seal Beach Missile Magazines......... 0 28,000 28,000
Navy California Seal Beach Ammunition Pier........... 95,310 95,310
Navy California Travis AFB Alert Force Complex....... 64,000 64,000
Navy Connecticut New London SSN Berthing Pier 32...... 72,260 72,260
Navy District of Columbia Naval Observatory Master Time Clocks & 75,600 75,600
Operations Fac (INC).
Navy Florida Jacksonville Targeting & Surveillance 32,420 32,420
Syst Prod Supp Fac.
Navy Florida MCSF Blount Island Police Station and EOC 0 18,700 18,700
Facility Replacement.
Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Machine Gun Range (INC)... 91,287 91,287
Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 164,100 -144,100 20,000
H.
Navy Guam Joint Region Marianas EOD Compound Facilities... 61,900 61,900
Navy Hawaii Kaneohe Bay Bachelor Enlisted Quarters 134,050 -95,050 39,000
Navy Hawaii West Loch Magazine Consolidation, 53,790 53,790
Phase 1.
Navy Italy Sigonella Communications Station.... 77,400 77,400
Navy Japan Iwakuni VTOL Pad--South........... 15,870 15,870
Navy Japan Yokosuka Pier 5 (Berths 2 and 3)... 174,692 -64,692 110,000
Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2nd Radio BN Complex, 25,650 25,650
Phase 2 (INC).
Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune ACV-AAV Maintenance 11,570 11,570
Facility Upgrades.
Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 10th Marines HIMARS 35,110 35,110
Complex.
Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune II MEF Operations Center 122,200 122,200
Replacement.
Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune 2nd MARDIV/2nd MLG Ops 60,130 60,130
Center Replacement.
Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Slocum Road Physical 0 52,300 52,300
Security Compliance.
Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Aircraft Maintenance 73,970 73,970
Hangar (INC).
Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point F-35 Training and 53,230 53,230
Simulator Facility.
Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point ATC Tower & Airfield 61,340 61,340
Operations.
Navy North Carolina MCAS Cherry Point Flightline Utility 51,860 51,860
Modernization (INC).
Navy North Carolina New River CH-53K Cargo Loading 11,320 11,320
Trainer.
Navy South Carolina MCRD Parris Island Range Safety Improvements 0 37,200 37,200
and Modernization Phase
III, Chosin Range.
Navy Utah Hill AFB D5 Missile Motor Receipt/ 50,520 50,520
Storage Fac (INC).
Navy Virginia Portsmouth Dry Dock Flood Protection 48,930 48,930
Improvements.
Navy Virginia Quantico Wargaming Center.......... 143,350 -133,350 10,000
Navy Virginia Yorktown NMC Ordnance Facilities 0 59,000 59,000
Recapitalization, Phase 1.
Navy Washington Bremerton Dry Dock 4 & Pier 3 51,010 51,010
Modernization.
Navy Washington Keyport Undersea Vehicle 25,050 25,050
Maintenance Facility.
Navy Washington Kitsap Seawolf Service Pier Cost- 0 48,000 48,000
to-Complete.
Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Family Housing Mitigation 0 59,600 59,600
and Oversight.
Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Planning and Design....... 0 20,400 20,400
Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Planning and Design....... 0 8,000 8,000
Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 81,237 81,237
Locations Construction.
Navy Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 167,715 167,715
Locations
SUBTOTAL NAVY 2,805,743 79,039 2,884,782
....................... ......................
AIR FORCE
Air Force Alaska Eielson AFB F-35 AME Storage Facility. 8,600 8,600
Air Force Arkansas Little Rock AFB C-130H/J Fuselage Trainer 47,000 47,000
Facility.
Air Force Australia Tindal APR-RAAF Tindal/Bulk 59,000 59,000
Storage Tanks.
Air Force Australia Tindal APR--RAAF Tindal/Earth 11,600 11,600
Covered Magazine.
Air Force California Travis AFB MMHS Allied Support....... 0 17,000 17,000
Air Force California Travis AFB KC-46A Alter B181/B185/ 6,600 6,600
B187 Squad Ops/AMU.
Air Force California Travis AFB KC-46A Regional 19,500 19,500
Maintenance Training
Facility.
Air Force Colorado Peterson AFB SOCNORTH Theater 0 54,000 54,000
Operational Support
Facility.
Air Force Colorado Schriever AFB Consolidated Space 148,000 -125,000 23,000
Operations Facility.
Air Force Cyprus RAF Akrotiri New Dormitory for 1 ERS... 27,000 27,000
Air Force Guam Joint Region Marianas Munitions Storage Igloos 65,000 65,000
III.
Air Force Illinois Scott AFB Joint Operations & Mission 100,000 -10,000 90,000
Planning Center.
Air Force Japan Kadena Air Base Munitions Storage......... 0 7,000 7,000
Air Force Japan Misawa Air Base Fuel Infrastructure 0 5,300 5,300
Resiliency.
Air Force Japan Yokota AB Fuel Receipt & 12,400 12,400
Distribution Upgrade.
Air Force Jordan Azraq Air Traffic Control Tower. 24,000 24,000
Air Force Jordan Azraq Munitions Storage Area.... 42,000 42,000
Air Force Mariana Islands Tinian Fuel Tanks w/ Pipeline/ 109,000 -99,000 10,000
Hydrant System.
Air Force Mariana Islands Tinian Airfield Development Phase 109,000 -99,000 10,000
1.
Air Force Mariana Islands Tinian Parking Apron............. 98,000 98,000
Air Force Maryland Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft 86,000 86,000
Recap Complex Inc 3.
Air Force Massachusetts Hanscom AFB MIT-Lincoln Lab (West Lab 135,000 -70,000 65,000
CSL/MIF) Inc 2.
Air Force Missouri Whiteman AFB Consolidated Vehicle Ops 0 27,000 27,000
and MX Facility.
Air Force Montana Malmstrom AFB Weapons Storage and 235,000 -219,000 16,000
Maintenance Facility.
Air Force Nevada Nellis AFB 365th ISR Group Facility.. 57,000 57,000
Air Force Nevada Nellis AFB F-35A Munitions Assembly 8,200 8,200
Conveyor Facility.
Air Force New Mexico Holloman AFB NC3 Support WRM Storage/ 0 20,000 20,000
Shipping Facility.
Air Force New Mexico Kirtland AFB Combat Rescue Helicopter 15,500 15,500
Simulator (CRH) ADAL.
Air Force New Mexico Kirtland AFB UH-1 Replacement Facility. 22,400 22,400
Air Force North Dakota Minot AFB Helo/TRFOps/AMUFacility... 5,500 5,500
Air Force Ohio Wright-Patterson AFB ADAL Intelligence Prod. 120,900 -46,900 74,000
Complex (NASIC) Inc 2.
Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 8... 110,000 -93,000 17,000
Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio Aquatics Tank............. 69,000 69,000
Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio T-XA DAL Ground Based Trng 9,300 9,300
Sys (GBTS) Sim.
Air Force Texas Joint Base San Antonio T-XMX Trng Sys 19,000 19,000
Centrailized Trng Fac.
Air Force United Kingdom Royal Air Force F-35A PGM Facility........ 14,300 14,300
Lakenheath
Air Force Utah Hill AFB GBSD Mission Integration 108,000 -90,000 18,000
Facility.
Air Force Utah Hill AFB Joint Advanced Tactical 6,500 6,500
Missile Storage Fac.
Air Force Washington Fairchild AFB Consolidated TFI Base 31,000 31,000
Operations.
Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified CONUS Military Family Housing 0 31,200 31,200
Civilian Personnel.
Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Cost to Complete.......... 0 190,000 190,000
Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 0 40,000 40,000
Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 142,148 142,148
Locations
Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 79,682 79,682
Locations Construction.
Air Force Wyoming F. E. Warren AFB Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/ 18,100 18,100
AMU and Alert Fac.
SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE 2,179,230 -460,400 1,718,830
....................... ......................
DEFENSE-WIDE
Defense-Wide California Beale AFB Hydrant Fuel System 33,700 33,700
Replacement.
Defense-Wide California Camp Pendleton Ambul Care Center/Dental 17,700 17,700
Clinic Replacement.
Defense-Wide California Mountain View--63 RSC Install Microgrid 0 9,700 9,700
Controller, 750 kW PV,
and 750 kWh Battery
Storage.
Defense-Wide California NAWS China Lake Energy Storage System..... 0 8,950 8,950
Defense-Wide California NSA Monterey COGENERATION PLANT AT B236 0 10,540 10,540
Defense-Wide Conus Classified Classified Location Battalion Complex, Ph 3... 82,200 82,200
Defense-Wide Florida Eglin AFB SOF Combined Squadron Ops 16,500 16,500
Facility.
Defense-Wide Florida Hurlburt Field SOF Maintenance Training 18,950 18,950
Facility.
Defense-Wide Florida Hurlburt Field SOF AMU & Weapons Hangar.. 72,923 72,923
Defense-Wide Florida Hurlburt Field SOF Combined Squadron 16,513 16,513
Operations Facility.
Defense-Wide Florida Key West SOF Watercraft Maintenance 16,000 16,000
Facility.
Defense-Wide Germany Geilenkirchen AB Ambulatory Care Center/ 30,479 30,479
Dental Clinic.
Defense-Wide Germany Ramstein Landstuhl Elementary 0 66,800 66,800
School.
Defense-Wide Guam Joint Region Marianas Xray Wharf Refueling 19,200 19,200
Facility.
Defense-Wide Guam NB Guam NSA Andersen Smart Grid 0 16,970 16,970
and ICS Infrastructure.
Defense-Wide Hawaii Joint Base Pearl Install 500KW Covered 0 4,000 4,000
Harbor-Hickam (JBPHH) Parking PV System &
Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations B479.
Defense-Wide Hawaii Joint Base Pearl SOF Undersea Operational 67,700 67,700
Harbor-Hickam Training Facility.
Defense-Wide Japan Yokosuka Kinnick High School Inc 2. 130,386 -120,386 10,000
Defense-Wide Japan Yokota AB Pacific East District 20,106 20,106
Superintendent's Office.
Defense-Wide Japan Yokota AB Bulk Storage Tanks PH1.... 116,305 -95,305 21,000
Defense-Wide Louisiana JRB NAS New Orleans Distribution Switchgear... 0 5,340 5,340
Defense-Wide Maryland Bethesda Naval MEDCEN Addition/Altertion 96,900 96,900
Hospital Incr 3.
Defense-Wide Maryland Fort Detrick Medical Research 27,846 27,846
Acquisition Building.
Defense-Wide Maryland Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building 426,000 426,000
#3 Inc 2.
Defense-Wide Maryland NSA Bethesda Chiller 3-9 Replacement... 0 13,840 13,840
Defense-Wide Maryland South Potomac IH Water Project--CBIRF/ 0 18,460 18,460
IHEODTD/Housing.
Defense-Wide Mississippi Columbus AFB Fuel Facilities 16,800 16,800
Replacement.
Defense-Wide Missouri Fort Leonard Wood Hospital Replacement Incr 50,000 50,000
2.
Defense-Wide Missouri St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) 218,800 -65,800 153,000
Complex Phase 2 Inc. 2.
Defense-Wide New Mexico White Sands Missile Install Microgrid, 700KW 0 5,800 5,800
Range PV, 150 KW Generator, and
Batteries.
Defense-Wide North Carolina Camp Lejeune SOF Marine Raider Regiment 13,400 13,400
HQ.
Defense-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Human Platform-Force 43,000 43,000
Generation Facility.
Defense-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Assessment and 12,103 12,103
Selection Training
Complex.
Defense-Wide North Carolina Fort Bragg SOF Operations Support 29,000 29,000
Bldg.
Defense-Wide Oklahoma Tulsa IAP Fuels Storage Complex..... 18,900 18,900
Defense-Wide Rhode Island Quonset State Airport Fuels Storage Complex 11,600 11,600
Replacement.
Defense-Wide South Carolina Joint Base Charleston Medical Consolidated 33,300 33,300
Storage & Distrib Center.
Defense-Wide South Dakota Ellsworth AFB Hydrant Fuel System 24,800 24,800
Replacement.
Defense-Wide Texas Camp Swift Install Microgrid, 650 KW 0 4,500 4,500
PV, & 500 KW Generator.
Defense-Wide Texas Fort Hood Install a Central Energy 0 16,500 16,500
Plant.
Defense-Wide Virginia Dam Neck SOF Demolition Training 12,770 12,770
Compound Expansion.
Defense-Wide Virginia Def Distribution Depot Operations Center Phase 2. 98,800 98,800
Richmond
Defense-Wide Virginia Joint Expeditionary SOF NSWG-10 Operations 32,600 32,600
Base Little Creek-- Support Facility.
Story
Defense-Wide Virginia Joint Expeditionary SOF NSWG2 JSOTF Ops 13,004 13,004
Base Little Creek-- Training Facility.
Story
Defense-Wide Virginia NRO Headquarters Irrigation System Upgrade. 0 66 66
Defense-Wide Virginia Pentagon Backup Generator.......... 8,670 8,670
Defense-Wide Virginia Pentagon Control Tower & Fire Day 20,132 20,132
Station.
Defense-Wide Washington Joint Base Lewis- SOF 22 STS Operations 47,700 47,700
McChord Facility.
Defense-Wide Washington Naval Base Kitsap Keyport Main Substation 0 23,670 23,670
Replacement.
Defense-Wide Wisconsin Gen Mitchell IAP POL Facilities Replacement 25,900 25,900
Defense-Wide Worldwide Classified Classified Location Mission Support Compound.. 52,000 52,000
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Defense Community 0 100,000 100,000
Infrastructure Program.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 4,950 4,950
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 8,000 8,000
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 29,679 29,679
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 10,000 10,000
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 35,472 35,472
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 31,464 31,464
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Energy Resilience and 150,000 150,000
Locations Conserv. Invest. Prog..
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Contingency Construction.. 10,000 10,000
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,000 3,000
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 14,400 14,400
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide ERCIP Design.............. 10,000 10,000
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 3,228 3,228
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 15,000 15,000
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor 11,770 11,770
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 4,890 4,890
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 52,532 52,532
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 27,000 27,000
Locations
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 16,736 16,736
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 10,000 10,000
Locations Construction.
Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 63,382 63,382
Locations
SUBTOTAL DEFENSE-WIDE 2,504,190 23,645 2,527,835
....................... ......................
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Army National Guard Alabama Anniston Enlisted Transient 0 34,000 34,000
Training Barracks.
Army National Guard Alabama Foley National Guard Readiness 12,000 12,000
Center.
Army National Guard California Camp Roberts Automated Multipurpose 12,000 12,000
Machine Gun Range.
Army National Guard Idaho Orchard Training Area Railroad Tracks........... 29,000 29,000
Army National Guard Maryland Havre De Grace Combined Support 12,000 12,000
Maintenance Shop.
Army National Guard Massachusetts Camp Edwards Automated Multipurpose 9,700 9,700
Machine Gun Range.
Army National Guard Minnesota New Ulm National Guard Vehicle 11,200 11,200
Maintenance Shop.
Army National Guard Mississippi Camp Shelby Automated Multipurpose 8,100 8,100
Machine Gun Range.
Army National Guard Missouri Springfield National Guard Readiness 12,000 12,000
Center.
Army National Guard Nebraska Bellevue National Guard Readiness 29,000 29,000
Center.
Army National Guard New Hampshire Concord National Guard Readiness 5,950 5,950
Center.
Army National Guard New York Jamaica Armory National Guard Readiness 0 20,000 20,000
Center.
Army National Guard Pennsylvania Moon Township Combined Support 23,000 23,000
Maintenance Shop.
Army National Guard Vermont Camp Ethan Allen General Instruction 0 30,000 30,000
Building (Mountain
Warfare School).
Army National Guard Washington Richland National Guard Readiness 11,400 11,400
Center.
Army National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 15,000 15,000
Locations Construction.
Army National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 20,469 20,469
Locations
SUBTOTAL ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 210,819 84,000 294,819
....................... ......................
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Air National Guard California Moffett Air National Fuels/Corrosion Control 0 57,000 57,000
Guard Base (NASA) Hangar and Shops.
Air National Guard Georgia Savannah/Hilton Head Consolidated Joint Air 24,000 24,000
IAP Dominance Hangar/Shops.
Air National Guard Missouri Rosecrans Memorial C-130 Flight Simulator 9,500 9,500
Airport Facility.
Air National Guard Puerto Rico Luis Munoz-Marin IAP Communications Facility... 12,500 12,500
Air National Guard Puerto Rico Luis Munoz-Marin IAP Maintenance Hangar........ 37,500 37,500
Air National Guard Wisconsin Truax Field F-35 Simulator Facility... 14,000 14,000
Air National Guard Wisconsin Truax Field Fighter Alert Shelters.... 20,000 20,000
Air National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 31,471 31,471
Locations Construction.
Air National Guard Worldwide Unspecified Various Worldwide Planning and Design....... 17,000 17,000
Locations
SUBTOTAL AIR NATIONAL GUARD 165,971 57,000 222,971
....................... ......................
ARMY RESERVE
Army Reserve Delaware Dover AFB Army Reserve Center/BMA... 21,000 21,000
Army Reserve Wisconsin Fort McCoy Transient Training 25,000 25,000
Barracks.
Army Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 8,928 8,928
Locations Construction.
Army Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 6,000 6,000
Locations
SUBTOTAL ARMY RESERVE 60,928 0 60,928
....................... ......................
NAVY RESERVE
Navy Reserve Louisiana New Orleans Entry Control Facility 25,260 25,260
Upgrades.
Navy Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 24,915 24,915
Locations Construction.
Navy Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 4,780 4,780
Locations
SUBTOTAL NAVY RESERVE 54,955 0 54,955
....................... ......................
AIR FORCE RESERVE
Air Force Reserve Georgia Robins AFB Consolidated Misssion 43,000 43,000
Complex Phase 3.
Air Force Reserve Minnesota Minneapolis-St Paul Aerial Port Facility...... 0 9,800 9,800
IAP
Air Force Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design....... 4,604 4,604
Locations
Air Force Reserve Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 12,146 12,146
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE RESERVE 59,750 9,800 69,550
....................... ......................
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
NATO Security Investment Worldwide Unspecified NATO Security NATO Security Investment 144,040 144,040
Program Investment Program Program.
SUBTOTAL NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 144,040 0 144,040
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 9,639,125 -403,416 9,235,709
....................... ......................
FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
Construction, Army Germany Baumholder Family Housing 29,983 29,983
Improvements.
Construction, Army Korea Camp Humphreys Family Housing New 83,167 83,167
Construction Incr 4.
Construction, Army Pennsylvania Tobyhanna Army Depot Family Housing Replacement 19,000 19,000
Construction.
Construction, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing P & D...... 9,222 9,222
Locations
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, ARMY 141,372 0 141,372
....................... ......................
O&M, ARMY
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 38,898 38,898
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 10,156 10,156
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 24,027 24,027
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 484 484
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 81,065 81,065
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 55,712 55,712
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 128,938 128,938
Locations
O&M, Army Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privitization 18,627 65,000 83,627
Locations Support.
SUBTOTAL O&M, ARMY 357,907 65,000 422,907
....................... ......................
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
Construction, Navy and Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide USMC DPRI/GUAM PLANNING 2,000 2,000
Marine Corps Locations AND DESIGN.
Construction, Navy and Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Construction Improvements. 41,798 41,798
Marine Corps Locations
Construction, Navy and Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 3,863 3,863
Marine Corps Locations
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 47,661 0 47,661
....................... ......................
O&M, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 63,229 63,229
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 19,009 19,009
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 50,122 50,122
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 151 151
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 16,647 16,647
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 64,126 64,126
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 82,611 82,611
Locations
O&M, Navy and Marine Corps Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization 21,975 81,000 102,975
Locations Support.
SUBTOTAL O&M, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS 317,870 81,000 398,870
....................... ......................
CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
Construction, Air Force Germany Spangdahlem AB Construct Deficit Military 53,584 53,584
Family Housing.
Construction, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Construction Improvements. 46,638 46,638
Locations
Construction, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Planning & Design......... 3,409 3,409
Locations
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE 103,631 0 103,631
....................... ......................
O&M, AIR FORCE
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization..... 22,593 65,000 87,593
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 42,732 42,732
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Management................ 56,022 56,022
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Services.................. 7,770 7,770
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 30,283 30,283
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous............. 2,144 2,144
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 15,768 15,768
Locations
O&M, Air Force Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 117,704 117,704
Locations
SUBTOTAL O&M, AIR FORCE 295,016 65,000 360,016
....................... ......................
O&M, DEFENSE-WIDE
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 4,100 4,100
Locations
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 82 82
Locations
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Utilities................. 13 13
Locations
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 12,906 12,906
Locations
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance............... 32 32
Locations
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings............... 645 645
Locations
O&M, Defense-Wide Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Leasing................... 39,222 39,222
Locations
SUBTOTAL O&M, DEFENSE-WIDE 57,000 0 57,000
....................... ......................
IMPROVEMENT FUND
Improvement Fund Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Administrative Expenses-- 3,045 3,045
Locations FHIF.
SUBTOTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 3,045 0 3,045
....................... ......................
UNACCMP HSG IMPROVEMENT FUND
Unaccmp HSG Improvement Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Administrative Expenses-- 500 500
Fund Locations UHIF.
SUBTOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPROVEMENT FUND 500 0 500
....................... ......................
TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING 1,324,002 211,000 1,535,002
....................... ......................
DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY BRAC
Army BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Base Realignment & Base Realignment and 66,111 66,111
Closure, Army Closure.
SUBTOTAL ARMY BRAC 66,111 0 66,111
....................... ......................
NAVY BRAC
Navy BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide Base Realignment & Closure 158,349 158,349
Locations
SUBTOTAL NAVY BRAC 158,349 0 158,349
....................... ......................
AIR FORCE BRAC
Air Force BRAC Worldwide Unspecified Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities--Air 54,066 54,066
Locations Force.
SUBTOTAL AIR FORCE BRAC 54,066 0 54,066
....................... ......................
TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 278,526 278,526
....................... ......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC 11,241,653 -192,416 11,049,237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Program FY 2020 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary by Appropriation
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear energy...................................... 137,808 0 137,808

Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Federal Salaries and Expenses..................... 434,699 -11,700 422,999
Weapons activities................................ 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,993,302 -29,100 1,964,202
Naval reactors.................................... 1,648,396 0 1,648,396
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 16,485,000 29,000 16,514,000

Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,506,501 0 5,506,501
Other defense activities.......................... 1,035,339 -3,000 1,032,339
Defense nuclear waste disposal (90M in 270 Energy) 26,000 -26,000 0
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,567,840 -29,000 6,538,840
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 23,052,840 0 23,052,840
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 23,190,648 0 23,190,648

Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 137,808 137,808
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 137,808 0 137,808

Federal Salaries and Expenses
Program direction....................................... 434,699 -11,700 422,999
Alignment with FTEs authorized........................ [-11,700]

Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs and major alterations
B61 Life extension program.......................... 792,611 792,611
W76 Life extension program.......................... 0 0
W76-2 Modification program.......................... 10,000 10,000
W88 Alteration program.............................. 304,186 304,186
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 898,551 898,551
IW1................................................. 0 0
W87-1 Modification Program (formerly IW1)........... 112,011 112,011
Total, Life extension programs and major alterations.. 2,117,359 0 2,117,359

Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 71,232 71,232
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 89,804 89,804
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 81,299 81,299
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 85,811 85,811
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 51,543 51,543
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 98,262 98,262
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 157,815 157,815
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 635,766 0 635,766

Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 47,500 47,500

Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 543,964 543,964
Research and development support.................... 39,339 1,000 40,339
UFR list--technology maturation................... [1,000]
R&D certification and safety........................ 236,235 10,000 246,235
UFR list--technology maturation................... [10,000]
Management, technology, and production.............. 305,000 305,000
Total, Stockpile services............................. 1,124,538 11,000 1,135,538

Strategic materials
Uranium sustainment................................. 94,146 94,146
Plutonium sustainment............................... 0 0

Plutonium sustainment:
Plutonium sustainment............................. 691,284 691,284
Plutonium pit production project.................. 21,156 21,156
Total, Plutonium sustainment:....................... 712,440 0 712,440

Tritium sustainment................................. 269,000 269,000
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 140,000 140,000
Lithium sustainment................................. 28,800 28,800
Strategic materials sustainment..................... 256,808 256,808
Total, Strategic materials............................ 1,501,194 0 1,501,194
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 5,426,357 11,000 5,437,357

Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 57,710 57,710
Primary assessment technologies..................... 95,169 95,169
Dynamic materials properties........................ 133,800 133,800
Advanced radiography................................ 32,544 32,544
Secondary assessment technologies................... 77,553 77,553
Academic alliances and partnerships................. 44,625 44,625
Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments... 145,160 145,160
Total, Science........................................ 586,561 0 586,561

Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 46,500 8,000 54,500
UFR list--technology maturation................... [8,000]
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 0 0
Delivery environments (formerly Weapon systems 35,945 35,945
engineering assessment technology).................
Nuclear survivability............................... 53,932 53,932
Enhanced surveillance............................... 57,747 57,747
Stockpile Responsiveness............................ 39,830 40,800 80,630
Program expansion................................. [40,800]
Total, Engineering.................................... 233,954 48,800 282,754

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition and other stockpile programs............... 55,649 55,649
Ignition............................................ 0 0
Support of other stockpile programs................. 0 0
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 66,128 66,128
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 8,571 8,571
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 12,000 12,000
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 338,247 338,247
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 480,595 0 480,595

Advanced simulation and computing
Advanced simulation and computing................... 789,849 789,849
Construction:
18-D-670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling 0 0
Equipment, LANL..................................
18-D-620, Exascale Computing Facility 50,000 50,000
Modernization Project, LLNL......................
Total, Construction................................. 50,000 0 50,000
Total, Advanced simulation and computing.............. 839,849 0 839,849

Advanced manufacturing development
Additive manufacturing.............................. 18,500 18,500
Component manufacturing development................. 48,410 10,000 58,410
UFR list--technology maturation................... [10,000]
Process technology development...................... 69,998 69,998
Total, Advanced manufacturing development............. 136,908 10,000 146,908

Total, RDT&E............................................ 2,277,867 58,800 2,336,667

Infrastructure and operations
Operating
Operations of facilities
Operations of facilities.......................... 905,000 905,000
Safety and environmental operations................. 119,000 119,000
Maintenance and repair of facilities................ 456,000 456,000
Recapitalization
Infrastructure and safety......................... 447,657 447,657
Capability based investments...................... 135,341 135,341
Total, Recapitalization............................. 582,998 0 582,998
Total, Operating................................. 2,062,998 0 2,062,998

Construction:
19-D-670, 138kV Power Transmission System 6,000 6,000
Replacement, NNSS..................................
18-D-660, Fire Station, Y-12........................ 0 0
18-D-650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS........ 27,000 27,000
18-D-680, Materials staging facility, PX............ 0 0
18-D-690, Lithium production capability, Y-12....... 0 0
18-D-690, Lithium processing facility, Y-12 32,000 32,000
(formerly Lithium production capability)...........
17-D-640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS.... 35,000 35,000
17-D-630, Expand Electrical Distribution System, 0 0
LLNL...............................................
16-D-515, Albuquerque complex project............... 0 0
15-D-613, Emergency Operations Center, Y-12......... 0 0
15-D-612, Emergency Operations Center, LLNL......... 5,000 5,000
15-D-611, Emergency Operations Center, SNL.......... 4,000 4,000
15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX...... 123,000 123,000
07-D-220, Radioactive liquid waste treatment 0 0
facility upgrade project, LANL.....................
07-D-220-04, Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL 0 0
06-D-141, Uranium processing facility Y-12, Oak 745,000 745,000
Ridge, TN..........................................

Chemistry and metallurgy research replacement (CMRR)
04-D-125, Chemistry and metallurgy research 168,444 168,444
replacement project, LANL........................
04-D-125-04, RLUOB equipment installation......... 0 0
04-D-125-05, PF -4 equipment installation......... 0 0
Total, Chemistry and metallurgy research replacement 168,444 0 168,444
(CMRR).............................................
Total, Construction................................... 1,145,444 0 1,145,444
Total, Infrastructure and operations.................... 3,208,442 0 3,208,442

Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 209,502 209,502
Program direction..................................... 107,660 107,660
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 317,162 0 317,162

Defense nuclear security................................ 0
Operations and maintenance............................ 778,213 778,213
Security improvements program......................... 0 0
Construction:......................................... 0
17-D-710, West end protected area reduction project, 0 0
Y-12...............................................
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 778,213 0 778,213

Information technology and cybersecurity................ 309,362 309,362
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 91,200 91,200
Subtotal, Weapons activities.............................. 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403

Adjustments
Use of prior year balances............................ 0 0
Total, Adjustments...................................... 0 0 0
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 12,408,603 69,800 12,478,403

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Material management and minimization
HEU reactor conversion.............................. 114,000 114,000
Nuclear material removal............................ 32,925 32,925
Material disposition................................ 186,608 186,608
Laboratory and partnership support.................. 0 0
Total, Material management & minimization............. 333,533 0 333,533
Global material security
International nuclear security...................... 48,839 48,839
Domestic radiological security...................... 90,513 90,513
International radiological security................. 60,827 60,827
Nuclear smuggling detection and deterrence.......... 142,171 142,171
Total, Global material security....................... 342,350 0 342,350

Nonproliferation and arms control..................... 137,267 137,267
Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D
Proliferation detection............................. 304,040 -19,500 284,540
Nonproliferation Stewardship program strategic [-19,500]
plan.............................................
Nuclear detonation detection........................ 191,317 191,317
Nonproliferation fuels development.................. 0 0
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D........... 495,357 -19,500 475,857

Nonproliferation construction
U. S. Construction:
18-D-150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project.... 79,000 79,000
99-D-143, Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 220,000 220,000
Facility, SRS....................................
Total, U. S. Construction:.......................... 299,000 0 299,000
Total, Nonproliferation construction.................. 299,000 0 299,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........ 1,607,507 -19,500 1,588,007

Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 13,700 13,700

Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response........ 0 0
Emergency Operations.................................. 35,545 -9,600 25,945
Non-defense function realignment.................... [-9,600]
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation............. 336,550 336,550
Total, Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response
program................................................. 372,095 -9,600 362,495
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,993,302 -29,100 1,964,202
Adjustments
Use of prior year balances............................ 0 0
Total, Adjustments...................................... 0 0 0
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................ 1,993,302 -29,100 1,964,202

Rescission
Rescission of prior year balances..................... 0 0
Rescission of prior year balances (Gen. Prov.)........ 0 0
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,993,302 -29,100 1,964,202

Naval Reactors
Naval reactors development.............................. 531,205 531,205
Columbia-Class reactor systems development.............. 75,500 75,500
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 155,000 155,000
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 553,591 553,591
Program direction....................................... 50,500 50,500
Construction:
20-D-931, KL Fuel development laboratory.............. 23,700 23,700
19-D-930, KS Overhead Piping.......................... 20,900 20,900
17-D-911, BL Fire System Upgrade...................... 0 0
15-D-904, NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............ 0 0
15-D-903, KL Fire System Upgrade...................... 0 0
14-D-901, Spent fuel handling recapitalization 238,000 238,000
project, NRF.........................................
Total, Construction..................................... 282,600 0 282,600
Transfer to NE--Advanced Test Reactor (non-add)......... ( 0) ( 0) ( 0)
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,648,396 0 1,648,396

Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 4,987 4,987
Richland:
River corridor and other cleanup operations:
River corridor and other cleanup operations......... 139,750 139,750
Central plateau remediation:
Central plateau remediation......................... 472,949 472,949
Total, Central plateau remediation.................... 472,949 0 472,949
Richland community and regulatory support............. 5,121 5,121

Construction:
18-D-404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage..... 11,000 11,000
Total, Construction................................... 11,000 0 11,000
Total, Richland......................................... 628,820 0 628,820

Office of River Protection:
Waste Treatment Immobilization Plant Commissioning.... 15,000 15,000
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition... 677,460 677,460
Construction:
18-D-16 Waste treatment and immobilization plant - 640,000 640,000
LBL/Direct feed LAW..............................
15-D-409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, 0 0
ORP..............................................
01-D-16 D, High-level waste facility.............. 30,000 30,000
01-D-16 E, Pretreatment Facility.................. 20,000 20,000
Total, Construction................................... 690,000 0 690,000

ORP Low-level waste offsite disposal.................. 10,000 10,000
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,392,460 0 1,392,460

Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 331,354 331,354
ID Excess facilities R&D.............................. 0 0
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,500 3,500
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 334,854 0 334,854

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,727 1,727
LLNL Excess facilities R&D............................ 128,000 128,000
Nuclear facility D & D Separations Process Research 15,300 15,300
Unit.................................................
Nevada................................................ 60,737 60,737
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,652 2,652
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 195,462 195,462
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 403,878 0 403,878

Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D............................. 93,693 93,693
OR Excess facilities R&D.............................. 0 0
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 45,000 45,000
OR cleanup and waste disposition
OR cleanup and waste disposition.................... 82,000 82,000
Subtotal, OR cleanup and waste disposition............ 82,000 0 82,000

Construction:
17-D-401 On-site waste disposal facility.......... 15,269 15,269
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 49,000 49,000
Total, Construction................................. 64,269 0 64,269
Total, OR cleanup and waste disposition............... 146,269 0 146,269

OR community & regulatory support..................... 4,819 4,819
OR technology development and deployment.............. 3,000 3,000
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 292,781 0 292,781

Savannah River Sites:
Savannah River risk management operations:
Savannah River risk management operations........... 490,613 490,613
Construction:
18-D-402, Emergency Operations Center Replacement, 6,792 6,792
SR...............................................
Total, Savannah River risk management operations...... 497,405 0 497,405

SR community and regulatory support................... 4,749 4,749
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 797,706 797,706
disposition........................................
Construction:
20-D-402 Advanced Manufacturing Collaborative 50,000 50,000
Facility (AMC)...................................
20-D-401 Saltstone Disposal Unit #10, 11, 12...... 500 500
19-D-701 SR Security system replacement........... 0 0
18-D-402,Saltstone disposal unit #8/9............. 51,750 51,750
17-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #7.............. 40,034 40,034
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, SRS...... 20,988 20,988
Total, Construction................................. 163,272 0 163,272
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 960,978 0 960,978
Total, Savannah River Site.............................. 1,463,132 0 1,463,132

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant........................... 299,088 299,088
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement ventilation 58,054 58,054
system, WIPP.......................................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP........................ 34,500 34,500
Total, Construction................................... 92,554 0 92,554
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 391,642 0 391,642

Program direction....................................... 278,908 278,908
Program support......................................... 12,979 12,979
Safeguards and Security................................. 317,622 317,622
Technology development.................................. 0 0
Use of prior year balances.............................. 0 0
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,522,063 0 5,522,063

Rescission:
Rescission of prior year balances..................... -15,562 -15,562
Rescission of prior year balances (Gen. Prov.)........ 0 0
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,506,501 0 5,506,501

Other Defense Activities
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 139,628 139,628
Program direction..................................... 72,881 72,881
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 212,509 0 212,509

Independent enterprise assessments
Independent enterprise assessments.................... 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 57,211 -3,000 54,211
Non-defense function realignment.................... [-3,000]
Total, Independent enterprise assessments............... 81,279 -3,000 78,279

Specialized security activities......................... 254,578 254,578
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 283,767 283,767
Program direction..................................... 19,262 19,262
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 303,029 0 303,029

Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 54,538 54,538
Chief information officer............................. 124,554 124,554
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 179,092 0 179,092

Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 4,852 4,852
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 1,035,339 -3,000 1,032,339
Use of prior year balances (HA)......................... 0 0
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 1,035,339 -3,000 1,032,339

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Yucca mountain and interim storage...................... 26,000 -26000 0
Total, Defense Nuclear Waste.............................. 26,000 -26,000 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Departmental Recommendations

Seven legislative proposals on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 were submitted as
executive communications to the President of the Senate by the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the
Department of Defense and subsequently referred to the
committee. Information on these executive communications
appears below. These executive communications are available for
review at the committee.
Executive Communication No. EC-795
Dated March 28, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on March 28,
2019
Executive Communication No. EC-924
Dated April 10, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 10,
2019
Executive Communication No. EC-925
Dated April 10, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 10,
2019
Executive Communication No. EC-992
Dated April 29, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 29,
2019
Executive Communication No. EC-993
Dated April 29, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on April 29,
2019
Executive Communication No. EC-1117
Dated May 6, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on May 6, 2019
Executive Communication No. EC-1254
Dated May 9, 2019
Received in the Committee on Armed Services on May 9, 2019

Committee Action

The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 passed by roll call
vote, 25-2, as follows: In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue,
Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley, Reed, Shaheen,
Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Peters, Manchin,
Duckworth, and Jones. Opposed: Senators Gillibrand and Warren.
The other 11 roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the full
committee markup are as follows:
1. MOTION: To include a provision that would require
sentencing in all non-capital general and special courts-
martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to be
conducted by a military judge, who would be mandated to
consider a presentencing investigation report before imposing
sentence.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 8-19
In favor: Senators Perdue, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono,
Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn,
Hawley, Reed, Shaheen, King, Manchin, Duckworth, and Jones
2. MOTION: To include a provision that would allow the
Department of Defense to transfer individuals detained at
United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United
States temporarily for emergency or critical medical treatment
not available at Guantanamo.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15-12
In favor: Senators Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, Reed, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren,
Peters, Manchin, and Jones
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley, and Duckworth
3. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
Department of Defense from procuring firefighting foam that
contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances after
October 1, 2022.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators Ernst, Perdue, Reed, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren,
Peters, Duckworth, and Jones
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Tillis, Sullivan, Cramer, McSally, Scott, Blackburn, Hawley,
and Manchin
4. MOTION: To include a provision that would increase the
amount of funding available for the Navy's analysis of
alternatives for a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile and
require the Secretary of Defense to create a program of record
for that program.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-11
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, Hawley, Manchin, and Jones
Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, and Duckworth
5. MOTION: To include a provision authorizing the Secretary
of Defense to use up to $10 million of Department of Defense
funds to facilitate the establishment of a Social Media Data
Analysis center at an independent nonprofit organization.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-17
In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono,
Kaine, King, Heinrich, Peters, Manchin, and Jones
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, Hawley, Gillibrand, Warren, and Duckworth
6. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
use of any FY15-FY21 authorized or appropriated military
construction funds for any ``covered project'', defined as
wall, barrier, fence, or a road associated with construction
with 100 miles of southern border.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-15
In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Duckworth, and
Jones
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, Hawley, and Manchin
7. MOTION: To include a provision requiring the Department
of Defense to request reimbursement from outside agencies or
departments for any assistance to civilian law enforcement.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-14
In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin,
Duckworth, and Jones
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, and Hawley
8. MOTION: To include a provision prohibiting the President
of the United States from using authorities under the
Insurrection Act to deploy members of the Armed Forces for the
purposes of enforcing immigration laws.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-14
In favor: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin,
Duckworth, and Jones
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, and Hawley
9. MOTION: To amend portions of a provision in order to
direct that the Commander, United States Space Force, report
directly to the Secretary of the Air Force versus reporting
through the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and then to the
Secretary of the Air Force. Additionally, to delay
implementation by one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act and place limits on additional manpower billets
(military and civilian) for that same year for the purpose of,
or in connection with, the establishment of the United States
Space Force.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, and Hawley
Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin,
Duckworth, and Jones
10. MOTION: To amend portions of a provision in order to
place the Commander, United States Space Force, as a member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Additionally, to delay
implementation by one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, and Hawley
Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin,
Duckworth, and Jones
11. MOTION: To agree with the ruling of the Chair that an
amendment proposed by Senator Kaine will not be considered
because it addresses a matter of shared jurisdiction.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-13
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cramer, McSally, Scott,
Blackburn, and Hawley
Opposed: Senators Reed, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, Peters, Manchin,
Duckworth, and Jones

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the
legislation.

Regulatory Impact

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2020.

Changes in Existing Law

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.