; (B) air and missile defense; (C) combat engineering; (D) logistics and sustainment; (E) warfighting headquarters elements; and (F) electronic warfare; (2) conduct a review of the balance of United States Army presence in Europe between rotationally deployed and forward-stationed forces, including an examination of transitioning the rotational presence of a United States Army armored brigade combat team (ABCT) in Europe to a forward-stationed ABCT, with consideration of— (A) the opportunity to more effectively signal the enduring commitment of the United States— (i) to assure allies and partners in Europe; and (ii) to deter Russian aggression; (B) the significant recurring fiscal costs of rotating heavy, equipment-intensive units; (C) the family readiness impacts of lengthy heel-to-toe rotational deployments; (D) the potential advantages of interoperability and cultural proficiency that can be achieved by forward-stationed forces that have knowledge of local rules, regulations, culture, customs, geography, and counterpart military units and officials; (E) the potential tradeoffs between— (i) the training readiness and high operational tempo of rotational units; and (ii) the higher manning rates of forward-stationed forces; and (F) the benefits of National Training Center rotations for rotationally deployed units as compared to maximized use of United States Army training areas in Europe, including the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Germany, by forward-stationed units in Europe; (3) consider options for mitigating personnel impacts of heel-to-toe rotations of United States forces in Europe, including designation of Operation Atlantic Resolve as a named operation; (4) examine the merit and feasibility of maintaining a continuous and enduring presence of at least one United States Army company in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania