[House Report 113-714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 545

113th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 113-714


                          SECOND ANNUAL REPORT

                           ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                                for the

                     ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS


                                     


                                     


 December 23, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
            
            
    
                                   ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

49-006 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------        
            
            
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                   
                    One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROB BISHOP, Utah                     RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia              Georgia
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana              JACKIE SPEIER, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               RON BARBER, Arizona
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            ANDREE CARSON, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada               DEREK KILMER, Washington
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama                   WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida           PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota         MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California                TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama

                  Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
             Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
             
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Washington, DC, December 23, 2014.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the 
second annual report on the activities of the Committee on 
Armed Services for the 113th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                               Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman.
                               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Powers and Duties................................................     1
Committee Rules..................................................     5
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services...................    17
Committee Staff..................................................    22
Committee Meetings and Hearings..................................    24
Legislative Activities...........................................    25
Oversight Activities.............................................    32
Publications.....................................................   120

                                                 Union Calendar No. 545
                                              
                                                                                                 
113th Congress     }                                    {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                    {     113-714
======================================================================
 
   SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 
                    SERVICES FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 December 23, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                           POWERS AND DUTIES

                               BACKGROUND

    The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by 
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs. 
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were 
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and 
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on 
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs 
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until 
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was 
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
    In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select 
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the 
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3, 
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas 
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially 
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require 
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing 
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the 
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a 
continuing basis all laws, programs, and Government activities 
dealing with or involving international arms control and 
disarmament and the education of military dependents in school.
    The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on 
January 4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of 
atomic energy in the Committee on Armed Services. Those 
responsibilities involved the national security aspects of 
atomic energy previously within the jurisdiction of the Joint 
Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 95-110, effective 
September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy.
    With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which 
established the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
Service over intelligence matters was changed.
    That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities and programs of the U.S. 
Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding 
the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of Central 
Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative 
jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities and programs was vested in the permanent select 
committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional 
interest may request consideration of any such matters. 
Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed 
Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process 
involving intelligence-related activities.
    The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over 
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives.
    With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4, 
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the 
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was 
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over 
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of 
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals. 
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing 
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence 
matters and the intelligence related activities of the 
Department of Defense.
    On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for 
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security 
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
    On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for 
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed 
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered 
cemeteries.

                    CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES

    The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national 
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8 of the United 
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that 
Congress shall have power:
    To raise and support Armies;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land 
and naval Forces;
    To provide for calling forth the Militia;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the 
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed 
in the Service of the United States;
    To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all Places 
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, 
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

                      HOUSE RULES ON JURISDICTION

    Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each 
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and 
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of 
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The 
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant 
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
    (1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and 
Air Force reservations and establishments.
    (2) Common defense generally.
    (3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum 
and oil shale reserves.
    (4) The Department of Defense generally, including the 
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
    (5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures 
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of 
interoceanic canals.
    (6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
    (7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
    (8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities of the Department of Defense.
    (9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including 
financial assistance for the construction and operation of 
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair 
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant 
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the 
national security.
    (10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and 
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
    (11) Scientific research and development in support of the 
armed services.
    (12) Selective service.
    (13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
and Air Force.
    (14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
    (15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the 
common defense.
    (16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
    In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general 
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special 
oversight functions with respect to international arms control 
and disarmament and the education of military dependents in 
schools.

           INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

    H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority 
for each committee to investigate matters within its 
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent 
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the 
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative 
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each 
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated, 
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight 
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by 
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on 
Armed Services.
    The committee derives its authority to conduct oversight 
from, among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight 
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special 
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to 
investigations and studies).
                            COMMITTEE RULES

    The committee held its organizational meeting on January 
15, 2013, and adopted the following rules governing rules and 
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full 
committee and its subcommittees.
    (H.A.S.C. 113-1; Committee Print No. 1)

                       RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules 
of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in 
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far 
as applicable.
    (b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be 
publicly available in electronic form and published in the 
Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the chair of 
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.

                  RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

    (a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., 
when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such 
other times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Chairman''), or by written 
request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
    (b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed 
with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a 
written request of a majority of the members of the Committee.

                   RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

    Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, 
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters 
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee 
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee 
Chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the 
Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority 
Member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding, 
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and 
subcommittee meetings or hearings.

   RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES

    (a) Jurisdiction
          (1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all 
        subjects listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule 
        X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
        retains exclusive jurisdiction for: defense policy 
        generally, ongoing military operations, the 
        organization and reform of the Department of Defense 
        and Department of Energy, counter-drug programs, 
        security and humanitarian assistance (except special 
        operations-related activities) of the Department of 
        Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy, 
        technology transfer and export controls, joint 
        interoperability, the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        program, Department of Energy nonproliferation 
        programs, detainee affairs and policy, force protection 
        policy and inter-agency reform as it pertains to the 
        Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons programs 
        of the Department of Energy. While subcommittees are 
        provided jurisdictional responsibilities in 
        subparagraph (2), the Committee retains the right to 
        exercise oversight and legislative jurisdiction over 
        all subjects within its purview under rule X of the 
        Rules of the House of Representatives.
          (2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of 
        seven standing subcommittees with the following 
        jurisdictions:
          Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All 
        Army, Air Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs 
        (except Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle 
        programs, strategic missiles, space, lift programs, 
        special operations, science and technology programs, 
        and information technology accounts) and the associated 
        weapons systems sustainment. In addition, the 
        subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine 
        Corps aviation programs and the associated weapons 
        systems sustainment, National Guard and Army, Air Force 
        and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition 
        programs.
          Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military 
        personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and 
        employment issues, military health care, military 
        education, and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the 
        subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare 
        and Recreation issues and programs.
          Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, 
        training, logistics and maintenance issues and 
        programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be 
        responsible for all military construction, depot 
        policy, civilian personnel policy, environmental 
        policy, installations and family housing issues, 
        including the base closure process, and energy policy 
        and programs of the Department of Defense.
          Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy 
        acquisition programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and 
        Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs 
        (except strategic weapons, space, special operations, 
        science and technology programs, and information 
        technology programs), deep strike bombers and related 
        systems, lift programs, seaborne unmanned aerial 
        systems and the associated weapons systems sustainment. 
        In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
        Maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the 
        Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of 
        clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives.
          Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons 
        (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space 
        programs (including national intelligence space 
        programs), ballistic missile defense, the associated 
        weapons systems sustainment, and Department of Energy 
        national security programs (except non-proliferation 
        programs).
          Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
        Capabilities: Defense-wide and joint enabling 
        activities and programs to include: Special Operations 
        Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism 
        programs and initiatives; science and technology policy 
        and programs; information technology programs; homeland 
        defense and Department of Defense related consequence 
        management programs; related intelligence support; and 
        other enabling programs and activities to include cyber 
        operations, strategic communications, and information 
        operations. In addition the subcommittee will be 
        responsible for intelligence policy (including 
        coordination of military intelligence programs), 
        national intelligence programs (excluding national 
        intelligence space programs), and DoD elements that are 
        part of the Intelligence Community.
          Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Any 
        matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee, 
        subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the 
        Committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee 
        chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative 
        jurisdiction.
    (b) Membership of the Subcommittees
          (1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of 
        membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
        Investigations, shall be filled in accordance with the 
        rules of the Majority party's conference and the 
        Minority party's caucus, respectively.
          (2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be 
        filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority 
        party's conference and the Minority party's caucus, 
        respectively. Consistent with the party ratios 
        established by the Majority party, all other Majority 
        members of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the 
        Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority 
        members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority 
        Member of the Committee.
          (3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking 
        Minority Member thereof may sit as ex officio members 
        of all subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote 
        in subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into 
        consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio 
        of the subcommittees or establishing a quorum at 
        subcommittee hearings or meetings.
          (4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of 
        a particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee 
        and participate during any of its hearings but shall 
        not have authority to vote, cannot be counted for the 
        purpose of achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point 
        of order at the hearing.

                RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES

    (a) Committee Panels
          (1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the 
        Committee consisting of members of the Committee to 
        inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters 
        that fall within the jurisdiction of more than one 
        subcommittee and to report to the Committee.
          (2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue 
        in existence for more than six months after the 
        appointment. A panel so appointed may, upon the 
        expiration of six months, be reappointed by the 
        Chairman for a period of time which is not to exceed 
        six months.
          (3) Consistent with the party ratios established by 
        the Majority party, all Majority members of the panels 
        shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
        and all Minority members shall be appointed by the 
        Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. The Chairman 
        of the Committee shall choose one of the Majority 
        members so appointed who does not currently chair 
        another subcommittee of the Committee to serve as 
        Chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member of 
        the Committee shall similarly choose the Ranking 
        Minority Member of the panel.
          (4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
    (b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
          (1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a 
        subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of 
        the Committee, may designate a task force to inquire 
        into and take testimony on a matter that falls within 
        the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee, 
        respectively. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member 
        of the Committee or subcommittee shall each appoint an 
        equal number of members to the task force. The Chairman 
        of the Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of 
        the members so appointed, who does not currently chair 
        another subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as 
        Chairman of the task force. The Ranking Minority Member 
        of the Committee or subcommittee shall similarly 
        appoint the Ranking Minority Member of the task force.
          (2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the 
        Committee or subcommittee shall continue in existence 
        for more than three months. A task force may only be 
        reappointed for an additional three months with the 
        written concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking 
        Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee whose 
        Chairman appointed the task force.
          (3) No task force shall have legislative 
        jurisdiction.

           RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

    (a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters 
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
    (b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup 
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or 
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee 
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
    (c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a 
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter 
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by 
the Committee.
    (d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not 
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of 
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the 
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee, 
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee.
    (e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority 
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation 
and other matters to be considered by the House of 
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not 
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
other applicable rules.

          RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    (a) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee, or 
of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, shall make a public 
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any 
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before 
the commencement of a hearing and at least three days before 
the commencement of a meeting. However, if the Chairman of the 
Committee, or of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, with 
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, 
determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or 
meeting sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or 
task force so determines by majority vote, a quorum being 
present for the transaction of business, such chairman shall 
make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any 
announcement made under this rule shall be promptly published 
in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee 
scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and 
promptly made publicly available in electronic form.
    (b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a 
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an 
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before 
such meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any 
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such 
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic 
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

        RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    (a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the 
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of 
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a 
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the 
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of 
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the 
public.
    (b) Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

             RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

    (a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of 
business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the 
Committee, or any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the 
extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct 
markups, shall be open to the public except when the Committee, 
subcommittee, panel, or task force in open session and with a 
majority being present, determines by record vote that all or 
part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day 
shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony, 
evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the 
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement 
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of 
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the 
preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in 
attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee, 
subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing 
or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony 
or evidence to be received would endanger the national 
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement 
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of 
Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive 
session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a 
majority of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force 
being present.
    (b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee or 
subcommittee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is 
asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the 
witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or 
incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of 
(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or 
testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a 
majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no 
fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the 
Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. A majority 
of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two 
members of the Committee or subcommittee may also vote to close 
the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing 
whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to 
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. The Committee or 
subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open 
session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being 
present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
    (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of 
the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by 
letter to the Chairman, one member of that member's personal 
staff, and an alternate, which may include fellows, with Top 
Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee, 
or that member's subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s) 
(excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of 
committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the 
provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes 
for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff 
member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval of 
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated 
by national security requirements at that time. The attainment 
of any required security clearances is the responsibility of 
individual members of the Committee.
    (d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance 
at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the 
House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the 
Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series 
of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a 
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to 
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same 
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the 
public.
    (e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same 
procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five 
additional consecutive days of hearings.

                            RULE 10. QUORUM

    (a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving 
evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.
    (b) One-third of the members of the Committee or 
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, 
with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the 
Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
          (1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;
          (2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and 
        hearings to the public;
          (3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;
          (4) Authorizing the use of executive session 
        material; and
          (5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to 
        close to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be 
        received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate 
        any person.
    (c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the 
House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is 
actually present.

                     RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

    (a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address 
the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under 
consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when 
the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee 
chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be 
exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall 
be recognized for not more than five minutes to address the 
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the 
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee.
    (b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the 
Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened 
shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, 
as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving 
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member will take precedence upon their arrival. In 
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the 
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the 
Majority to Minority members present and shall establish the 
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to 
disadvantage the members of either party.
    (2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a member of 
the Committee who is not a member of a subcommittee may be 
recognized by a subcommittee chairman in order of their arrival 
and after all present subcommittee members have been 
recognized.
    (3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, with 
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may 
depart with the regular order for questioning which is 
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule provided that 
such a decision is announced prior to the hearing or prior to 
the opening statements of the witnesses and that any such 
departure applies equally to the Majority and the Minority.
    (c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in 
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel, 
or task force hearings and meetings.

             RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

    (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions 
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is 
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
          (1) to sit and act at such times and places within 
        the United States, whether the House is in session, has 
        recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
          (2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the 
        attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
        production of such books, records, correspondence, 
        memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not 
        limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers 
        necessary.
    (b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the 
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full 
Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in 
the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations 
or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the 
members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee 
being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the 
Chairman, or by any member designated by the Committee.
    (2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued 
by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph (a)(2) 
may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House of 
Representatives.

                      RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS

    (a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to 
the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the 
Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of 
presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the 
Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less 
than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such 
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in 
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national 
security information bearing a classification of Secret or 
higher, the statement shall be made available in the Committee 
rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee as soon 
as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of 
presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from 
the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be 
waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a 
quorum being present. In cases where a witness does not submit 
a statement by the time required under this rule, the Chairman 
of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with the 
concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may 
elect to exclude the witness from the hearing.
    (b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each 
witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee 
in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the 
proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such 
appearance to a brief summary of the submitted written 
statement.
    (c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with 
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness, 
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later 
than one day after the witness appears.

               RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES

    (a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman, 
may administer oaths to any witness.
    (b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following 
oath:
          ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the 
        testimony you will give before this Committee (or 
        subcommittee) in the matters now under consideration 
        will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
        truth, so help you God?''

                   RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

    (a) When a witness is before the Committee or a 
subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put 
questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman 
or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose 
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
    (b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire 
shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness 
or panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or 
witnesses being included in the five-minute period, until such 
time as each member has had an opportunity to question each 
witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds 
for questioning witnesses by members are within the discretion 
of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.
    (c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or 
subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that 
may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration.

         RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS

    The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the 
Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially 
in substantially verbatim form, with the material requested for 
the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of 
the record, as appropriate. The transcripts of markups 
conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be published 
officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct any 
errors, other than those in transcription, will be appended to 
the record, and the appropriate place where the change is 
requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under 
this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted 
in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include 
materials that have been submitted for the record and are 
covered under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these 
materials shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No 
transcript of an executive session conducted under rule 9 shall 
be published under this rule.

                     RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS

    (a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote, 
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
    (b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
    (c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a 
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be 
cast by proxy.
    (d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in 
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference 
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of 
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon 
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
    (e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as 
appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority 
Member or the most senior Minority member who is present at the 
time, may elect to postpone requested record votes until such 
time or point at a markup as is mutually decided. When 
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any 
intervening order for the previous question, the underlying 
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment 
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.

                       RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS

    (a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by 
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice 
of intention to file supplemental, Minority, additional or 
dissenting views, all members shall be entitled to not less 
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in 
which to file such written and signed views with the Staff 
Director of the Committee, or the Staff Director's designee. 
All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee 
shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report 
filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter.
    (b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report 
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and 
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief 
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee 
report on the measure or matter.
    (c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any 
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee, 
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be 
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in 
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

           RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

    The result of each record vote in any meeting of the 
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for 
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of 
the Committee and also made publicly available in electronic 
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause 
2(e)(1)B(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. Information so available shall include a 
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other 
proposition and the name of each member voting for and each 
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or 
proposition and the names of those members present but not 
voting.

     RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION

    (a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security 
information bearing a classification of Secret or higher which 
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be 
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be 
given appropriate safekeeping.
    (b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval 
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in 
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any national security information that is 
received which is classified as Secret or higher. Such 
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by 
any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of 
the Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the 
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has 
requested the opportunity to review such material.
    (c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation 
with the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as 
in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any proprietary information that is received by 
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such 
procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and applicable law.

                      RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING

    The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, 
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or 
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                       RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS

    The records of the Committee at the National Archives and 
Records Administration shall be made available for public use 
in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority 
Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 
4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and 
the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a 
determination on the written request of any member of the 
Committee.

                      RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES

    Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

                  RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS

    Not later than January 2nd of each year the Committee shall 
submit to the House a report on its activities, pursuant to 
clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.
             COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                             FULL COMMITTEE

    Pursuant to H. Res. 6 (agreed to on January 3, 2013), H. 
Res. 7 (agreed to on January 3, 2013), H. Res. 17 (agreed to on 
January 4, 2013), H. Res. 22 (agreed to on January 14, 2013), 
H. Res. 453 (agreed to on January 8, 2014), and H. Res. 537 
(agreed to on April 3, 2014), the following Members have served 
on the Committee on Armed Services in the 113th Congress:

    HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, 
       California, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JEFF MILLER, Florida
ROBERT E. ANDREWS,\3\ New Jersey     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      ROB BISHOP, Utah
RICK LARSEN, Washington              MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii          DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JACKIE SPEIER, California            JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
RON BARBER, Arizona                  MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
ANDREE CARSON, Indiana               E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York           VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DEREK KILMER, Washington             JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois          MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas               MO BROOKS, Alabama
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
TULSI GABBARD,\4\ Hawaii             KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
                                     PAUL COOK, California
                                     JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
                                     BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
                                     JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
                                     BRADLEY BYRNE,\2\ Alabama

----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
\2\Mr. Byrne was elected to the committee on January 8, 2014.
\3\Mr. Andrews resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives on 
February 18, 2014.
\4\Ms. Gabbard was elected to the committee on April 3, 2014.
            SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The following subcommittees were established at the 
committee's organizational meeting on January 15, 2013.

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Defense-wide and 
joint enabling activities and programs to include: Special 
Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism 
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy and 
programs; information technology programs; homeland defense and 
Department of Defense related consequence management programs; 
related intelligence support; and other enabling programs and 
activities to include cyber operations, strategic 
communications, and information operations. In addition the 
subcommittee will be responsible for intelligence policy 
(including coordination of military intelligence programs), 
national intelligence programs (excluding national intelligence 
space programs), and DOD elements that are part of the 
Intelligence Community.

  MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaLL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
ANDREE CARSON, Indiana               RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York           TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DEREK KILMER, Washington             DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
                                     JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military 
personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and employment 
issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA 
issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.

   JOE WILSON, South Carolina, 
             Chairman

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
                                     KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military 
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and 
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
all military construction, depot policy, civilian personnel 
policy, environmental policy, installations and family housing 
issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy 
and programs of the Department of Defense.

   ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, 
             Chairman

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii          KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
JACKIE SPEIER, California            J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RON BARBER, Arizona                  FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire     MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois          DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas               E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
                                     STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy acquisition 
programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps amphibious 
assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, space, 
special operations, science and technology programs, and 
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and 
related systems, lift programs, seaborne unmanned aerial 
systems and the associated weapons systems sustainment. In 
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Maritime 
programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated 
in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives.

    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, 
             Chairman

                                     K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
                                     DUNCAN HUNTER, California
                                     E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
                                     STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
                                     ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
                                     MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
                                     JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
                                     KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
                                     PAUL COOK, California
                                     BRADLEY BYRNE,\1\ Alabama

MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
RICK LARSEN, Washington
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
DEREK KILMER, Washington
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
TULSI GABBARD,\2\ Hawaii

----------
\1\Mr. Byrne was assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces on January 17, 2014.
\2\Ms. Gabbard was assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces on April 3, 2014.

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Strategic 
weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space 
programs (including national intelligence space programs), 
ballistic missile defense, the associated weapons systems 
sustainment, and Department of Energy national security 
programs (except non-proliferation programs).

  MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman

JIM COOPER, Tennessee                TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
RICK LARSEN, Washington              MO BROOKS, Alabama
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           JOE WILSON, South Carolina
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaCHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
ANDREE CARSON, Indiana               JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
                                     JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--All Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine 
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles, 
space, lift programs, special operations, science and 
technology programs, and information technology accounts) and 
the associated weapons systems sustainment. In addition, the 
subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine Corps 
aviation programs and the associated weapons systems 
sustainment, National Guard and Army, Air Force and Marine 
Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition programs.

 MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman

                                     FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
                                     JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
                                     CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
                                     JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
                                     MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama
                                     PAUL COOK, California
                                     JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
                                     BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
                                     JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
                                     MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
                                     WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
                                     ROB BISHOP, Utah
                                     BRADLEY BYRNE,\2\ Alabama

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
RON BARBER, Arizona
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas

----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
\2\Mr. Byrne was assigned to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces on January 17, 2014.

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Any matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the 
concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee and, as 
appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee 
shall have no legislative jurisdiction.

 MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama, Chairman
    JOSEPH J. HECK,\2\ Nevada, 
             Chairman

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
ROBERT E. ANDREWS,\3\ New Jersey     MO BROOKS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California            WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TULSI GABBARD,\4\ Hawaii             JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma

----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
\2\Dr. Heck was appointed Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on January 15, 2014.
\3\Mr. Andrews resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives on 
February 18, 2014.
\4\Ms. Gabbard was assigned to the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on April 3, 2014.
                            COMMITTEE STAFF

    By committee resolution adopted at the organizational 
meeting on January 15, 2013, or by authority of the chairman, 
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the 
committee during the 113th Congress:

    Bob Simmons, Staff Director
   Roger Zakheim, Deputy Staff 
Director/General Counsel (resigned 
          Oct. 31, 2013)
   Jenness Simler, Deputy Staff 
             Director
Catherine McElroy, General Counsel
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
 Michael R. Higgins, Professional 
 Staff Member (resigned Feb. 28, 
               2013)
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff 
  Member (deceased Jan. 5, 2014)
  John F. Sullivan, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Nancy M. Warner, Professional 
  Staff Member (resigned May 1, 
               2013)
     Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., 
     Professional Staff Member
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned Oct. 1, 2014)
  Douglas C. Roach, Professional 
 Staff Member (deceased Jan. 11, 
               2013)
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff 
   Member (resigned May 1, 2014)
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Jeanette S. James, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Rebecca A. Ross, Professional 
           Staff Member
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Lynn M. Williams, Professional 
           Staff Member
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
 Douglas Bush, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Vickie Plunkett, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Timothy McClees, Professional 
Staff Member and Senior Advisor to 
the Ranking Member (resigned Dec. 
             13, 2013)
 Kevin Gates, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Mike Casey, Professional Staff 
              Member
David Sienicki, Professional Staff 
              Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative 
            Operations 
  Everett Coleman, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Craig Greene, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Phil MacNaughton, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Jack Schuler, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant 
      (resigned Jan. 4, 2013)
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff 
              Member 
 John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
    William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff 
              Member 
Peter Villano, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Jim Weiss, Research Assistant 
      (resigned Mar. 8, 2013)
Paul Lewis, Counsel (resigned Oct. 
             1, 2013)
      Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff 
              Member 
      Michele Pearce, Counsel
  Catherine Sendak, Professional 
           Staff Member
Michael Amato, Professional Staff 
              Member
   Robert J. McAlister, Deputy 
             Spokesman
      Christopher J. Bright, 
     Professional Staff Member
  Thomas MacKenzie, Professional 
  Staff Member (resigned May 1, 
               2013)
 Lauren Hauhn, Research Assistant 
      (resigned Mar. 7, 2014)
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Elizabeth Conrad, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive 
 Assistant (resigned June 6, 2014)
 Nicholas Rodman, Clerk (resigned 
           May 8, 2014)
  Andrew T. Walter, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Claude Chafin, Communications 
             Director
         Aaron Falk, Clerk
  Arthur Milikh, Clerk (resigned 
          Mar. 20, 2014)
       Tim Morrison, Counsel
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff 
              Member
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff 
              Member
   James Mazol, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned Mar. 12, 2013)
       Katie Thompson, Clerk
  Alexander Gallo, Professional 
           Staff Member
       Eric L. Smith, Clerk
  Joe Sangiorgio, Communications 
            Assistant 
John Noonan, Deputy Communications 
             Director
Colin Bosse, Clerk (appointed Mar. 
             4, 2013)
 Julie Herbert, Clerk (appointed 
          Mar. 13, 2013)
  David Giachetti, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed Sept. 1, 
               2013)
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Sept. 16, 2013)
David Baker, Clerk (appointed Mar. 
 26, 2014, resigned Oct. 3, 2014)
Abigail P. Gage, Clerk (appointed 
          Apr. 28, 2014)
 Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional 
  Staff Member (appointed May 5, 
               2014)
  Katie Rember, Clerk (appointed 
          June 17, 2014)
  Joe Whited, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed June 18, 2014)
    Candace Wagner, Executive 
Assistant (appointed July 1, 2014)
 Mike Miller, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Sept. 2, 2014)
                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

    A total of 302 meetings and hearings have been held by the 
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the 
113th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and hearings 
follows:

FULL COMMITTEE....................................................    98
SUBCOMMITTEES:
    Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
      Capabilities................................................    35
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    31
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    34
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................    29
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    35
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................    26
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................    14
                         LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

                              Public Laws


 Public Law 113-66 (H.R. 3304)--National Defense Authorization Act for 
                            Fiscal Year 2014

    H.R. 3304 was introduced on October 22, 2013, by Mr. 
Theodore E. Deutch. The bill's title, as introduced, was ``To 
authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States 
Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to 
authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other 
veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal 
of Honor,'' and was referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. The committee waived consideration of H.R. 3304, and 
on October 28, 2013, Mr. Mike Rogers (AL) moved to consider 
H.R. 3304 under suspension of the rules of the House, and the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was agreed to by 
voice vote. On October 29, 2013, the bill was received in the 
Senate, read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services. On November 19, 2013, the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services was discharged and the bill was laid before 
Senate by unanimous consent. On November 19, 2013, H.R. 3304 
was passed in the Senate with amendments and an amendment to 
the title by unanimous consent. The following day, a message on 
Senate action was sent to the House.
    H.R. 1960 was introduced on May 14, 2013, by Chairman 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon. The bill's title, as introduced, was 
``To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.'' The committee 
reported H.R. 1960 favorably to the House on June 7, 2013. The 
House considered H.R. 1960 on June 20, 2013, under a structured 
rule and agreed to the measure, as amended, by a recorded vote 
of 315-108 (Roll no. 244).
    S. 1197 was introduced on June 20, 2013, by Chairman Carl 
Levin. The bill's title, as introduced, was ``To authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 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.'' The Senate Committee on Armed Services 
reported S. 1197 out of committee on June 20, 2013. The Senate 
began consideration of S. 1197 on November 18, 2013, but did 
not complete consideration of S. 1197 and therefore was unable 
to initiate a formal conference with the House.
    In lieu of a formal conference report for the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the legislative 
vehicle used for the agreed upon legislative text between the 
House and the Senate was an amendment to H.R. 3304. The 
provisions granting the President the authority to award the 
Medal of Honor to certain individuals were retained. On 
December 12, 2013, Mr. McKeon moved that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution H. Res. 441, which provided 
for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to 
H.R. 3304, with an amendment, which contained the agreed upon 
legislative text between the House and the Senate. Pursuant to 
H. Res. 441, the House agreed to Senate amendments to H.R. 
3304, with an amendment, by the yeas and nays, 350-69 (Roll no. 
641). On December 13, 2013, a message on House action was 
received in the Senate and held at the desk. On December 19, 
2013, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 3304 by yea-nay vote, 84-15 (Record Vote 
Number 284). On December 26, 2013, H.R. 3304 was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 113-66.
    Public Law 113-66, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, does the following: (1) Authorizes 
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for procurement and for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) 
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for operation 
and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 
Authorizes for fiscal year 2014: (a) the personnel strength for 
each Active Duty Component of the military departments; (b) the 
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve 
Component of the Armed Forces; and (c) the military training 
student loads for each of the Active and Reserve Components of 
the military departments; (4) Modifies various elements of 
compensation for military personnel and impose certain 
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the 
defense establishment; (5) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal 
year 2014 for military construction and family housing; (6) 
Authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations; 
(7) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the 
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modifies 
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) 
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the Maritime 
Administration.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 
is a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its 
primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, section 8 of 
the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power 
to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; 
and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land 
and naval forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives 
provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally, 
and over the military application of nuclear energy, to the 
Committee on Armed Services. The bill includes the large 
majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from the 
oversight activities of Committee on Armed Services in the 
previous year, as informed by the experience gained over the 
previous decades of the committee's existence.

Public Law 113-130 (H.R. 272)--To designate the Department of Veterans 
    Affairs and Department of Defense joint outpatient clinic to be 
 constructed in Marina, California, as the ``Major General William H. 
                    Gourley VA-DOD Outpatient Clinic

    H.R. 272, ``To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs 
and Department of Defense joint outpatient clinic to be 
constructed in Marina, California, as the ``Major General 
William H. Gourley VA-DOD Outpatient Clinic'' was introduced on 
January 15, 2013, by Mr. Sam Farr, and was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel and 
the full committee waived consideration of H.R. 272. On 
November 1, 2013, Mr. Brad Wenstrup moved to consider H.R. 272, 
as amended, under suspension of the rules of the House, and the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was agreed to by 
the yeas and nays, 388-0 (Roll no. 589). On November 19, 2013, 
H.R. 272 was received in the Senate. On July 9, 2014, H.R. 272 
passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent. On 
July 25, 2014, H.R. 272 was signed by the President and became 
Public Law 113-130.

             Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress


 H. Con. Res. 58--Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need 
for the continued availability of religious services to members of the 
    Armed Forces and their families during a lapse in appropriations

    H. Con. Res. 58, ``Expressing the sense of Congress 
regarding the need for the continued availability of religious 
services to members of the Armed Forces and their families 
during a lapse in appropriations'' was introduced on October 5, 
2013, by Mr. Doug Collins (GA) and was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On 
October 5, 2013, Mr. Joe Wilson (SC) moved to consider H. Con. 
Res. 58 under suspension of the rules of the House, and the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was agreed to by 
the yeas and nays, 400-1 (Roll no. 526). On October 10, 2013, 
the resolution was laid before Senate by unanimous consent, and 
agreed to by the Senate with an amendment and an amended 
preamble by unanimous consent. On October 16, 2013, the House 
agreed to the Senate amendments by unanimous consent.

 H.R. 3979--Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
                 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015

    H.R. 3979 was introduced on January 31, 2014, by 
Representative Lou Barletta, and was referred to the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The title of the bill, as introduced, was: 
``To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that 
emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as 
employees under the shared responsibility requirements 
contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.'' 
On February 25, 2014, the Committee on Ways and Means reported 
the bill, as amended, to the House. On March 11, 2014, H.R. 
3979 was passed by the House under suspension of the rules by 
the yeas and nays, 410-0 (Roll no. 116). On April 7, 2014, H.R. 
3979 passed the Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote, 59-38 
(Record Vote Number: 101). On April 8, 2014, a message on 
Senate action was sent to the House.
    In lieu of a formal conference report for the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the legislative 
vehicle used for the agreed upon legislative text between the 
House and the Senate was an amendment to the Senate Amendment 
to H.R. 3979. This legislation is substantially based on two 
bills: (1) HR. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which passed 
the House on May 22, 2014, by a vote of 325-98; and (2) S. 
2410, the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015, which was approved by the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services on the same day by a vote of 25-1.
    On December 4, 2014, Mr. McKeon moved that the House concur 
with an amendment in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979. 
Pursuant to H. Res. 770, the House proceeded with 1 hour of 
debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 
3979 with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 113-58 modified by the amendments printed in 
part A of House Report 113-646 and the amendment specified in 
section 5 of H. Res. 770, which contained the agreed upon 
legislative text between the House and the Senate. On December 
4, 2014, the House agreed to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment by a vote of 300-119 (Roll no. 551). On December 8, 
2014, a message on House action was received in Senate and held 
at the desk. On December 12, 2014, the Senate agreed to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979 by a vote 
of 89-11 (Record Vote Number: 325).
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would: 
(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for 
procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation 
(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for 
operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; 
(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2015: (a) the personnel strength 
for each Active Duty Component of the military departments; (b) 
the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each 
Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; and (c) the military 
training student loads for each of the Active and Reserve 
Components of the military departments; (4) Modify various 
elements of compensation for military personnel and impose 
certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in 
the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2015 for military construction and family housing; 
(6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency 
Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 
for the Department of Energy national security programs; and 
(8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the 
Maritime Administration.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, is a 
key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its 
primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, section 8 of 
the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power 
to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; 
and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land 
and naval forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives 
provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally, 
and over the military application of nuclear energy, to the 
House Committee on Armed Services. The bill includes the large 
majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from the 
oversight activities of Committee on Armed Services in the 
current year, as informed by the experience gained over the 
previous decades of the committee's existence.

           Legislation Passed by the House of Representatives


    H.R. 1864--To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an 
Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel 
actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding 
                             sexual assault

    H.R. 1864, ``To amend title 10, United States Code, to 
require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of 
retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making 
protected communications regarding sexual assault'' was 
introduced on May 7, 2013, by Mrs. Jackie Walorski (IN) and was 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel and the full committee waived 
consideration of H.R. 1864. On June 26, 2013, Mrs. Walorski 
moved to consider H.R. 1864 under suspension of the rules of 
the House, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 423-0 (Roll no. 294). 
On July 8, 2013, H.R. 1864 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. 
No further action has been taken.

   H.R. 1960--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014

    On May 14, 2013, H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, was introduced by 
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. On June 7, 2013, the Committee on 
Armed Services held a markup session to consider H.R. 1960. The 
committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1960, 
as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a 
vote of 59-2. The bill passed the House, as amended, on June 
14, 2013, by recorded vote, 315-108 (Roll no. 244). On July 8, 
2013, the bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders 
Calendar No. 126. For further action on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, please see Public Law 
113-66 (H.R. 3304).

H.R. 4435--Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
                          for Fiscal Year 2015

    On April 9, 2014, H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was introduced by 
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (CA) and referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. On May 7, 2014, the Committee on 
Armed Services held a markup session to consider H.R. 4435. The 
committee, a quorum being present, approved H.R. 4435, as 
amended, by a vote of 61-0. The bill passed the House, as 
amended, on May 22, 2014, by recorded vote, 325-98 (Roll no. 
240). The title of the bill was amended to the ``Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015.'' On June 5, 2014, the bill was received in the 
Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders Calendar No. 425. For further 
action on the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, please see H.R. 3979.

 H. Res. 644--Condemning and disapproving of the failure of the Obama 
   administration to comply with the lawful statutory requirement to 
  notify Congress before transferring individuals detained at United 
  States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing concern 
  about the national security risks over the transfer of five Taliban 
      leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists

    On June 25, 2014, Representative Scott E. Rigell introduced 
H. Res. 644, ``condemning and disapproving of the Obama 
administration's failure to comply with the lawful statutory 
requirement to notify Congress before releasing individuals 
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
[GTMO], and expressing national security concerns over the 
release of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of 
negotiating with terrorists.'' H. Res. 644 was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services on June 25, 2014.
    On July 29, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services met in 
open session to consider H. Res. 644 and report the measure to 
the House. During the markup, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' 
McKeon offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. 
Res. 644 that would condemn and disapprove of the failure of 
the Obama administration to comply with the lawful statutory 
requirement to notify Congress before transferring five GTMO 
detainees, and expressing concern about the associated national 
security risks and repercussions of negotiating with 
terrorists. The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
by Chairman McKeon was agreed to by record vote, 34-25. The 
committee ordered H. Res. 644, as amended, reported to the 
House with a favorable recommendation by voice vote, a quorum 
being present. On July 31, 2014, H. Res. 644 was placed on the 
House Calendar, Calendar No. 133.
    Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 715, H. Res. 644 was 
considered in the House under a closed rule on September 9, 
2014. The resolution provided for 1 hour of debate on H. Res. 
644 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. On 
September 9, 2014, H. Res. 644 was agreed to by the yeas and 
nays, 249-163 (Roll no. 485). The title of H. Res. 644 was 
amended to read: ``Condemning and disapproving of the failure 
of the Obama administration to comply with the lawful statutory 
requirement to notify Congress before transferring individuals 
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
and expressing concern about the national security risks over 
the transfer of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of 
negotiating with terrorists.''

        Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services


  H. Res. 649--Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the 
House of Representatives copies of any emails in the possession of the 
    Department of Defense or the National Security Agency that were 
transmitted to or from the email account(s) of former Internal Revenue 
  Service Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between 
                      January 2009 and April 2011

    On June 25, 2014, Representative Steve Stockman introduced 
H. Res. 649, a resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of 
Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of 
any emails in the possession of the Department of Defense or 
the National Security Agency that were transmitted to or from 
the email account(s) of former Internal Revenue Service Exempt 
Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between January 
2009 and April 2011.
    Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives provides for a committee to report on a 
qualifying resolution of inquiry, such as H. Res. 649, within 
14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the 
committee is in order. H. Res. 649 was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services on June 25, 2014.
    Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution 
of inquiry is one of the methods that the House can use to 
obtain information from the executive branch. As stated in 
volume 7, chapter 24, section 8 of `Deschler's Precedents,' a 
resolution of inquiry is a `simple resolution making a direct 
request or demand of the President or head of an executive 
department to furnish the House of Representatives with 
specific information in the possession of the executive 
branch.' In addition, the resolution must seek facts rather 
than opinions and may not require an investigation.
    On July 16, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
markup session to consider H. Res. 649. No amendments were 
offered to the resolution. The committee ordered H. Res. 649 
reported to the House without recommendation by voice vote, a 
quorum being present. On July 22, 2014, H. Res. 649 was placed 
on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 125. No further action has 
been taken.
                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

                                OVERVIEW

    Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, described below are actions taken and 
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and 
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special 
attention during the 113th Congress, as well as additional 
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight 
plan.

                             POLICY ISSUES


  National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Related 
                         Defense Policy Issues

    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee has continued its traditional interest in the broad 
spectrum of national security challenges facing the United 
States and how the Nation might best prepare itself to face 
such challenges in the near- and long-term. H.R. 3979, the Carl 
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and the Joint 
Explanatory Statement that accompanies it, is a key mechanism 
through which Congress fulfills one of its primary 
responsibilities as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 
3979 includes the large majority of the findings and 
recommendations resulting from the committee's oversight 
activities in the current year, as informed by the experience 
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
    H.R. 3979 reflects the committee's steadfast support of the 
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the 
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the 
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions. 
Events of the last year serve to highlight what the National 
Defense Panel Review of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review has 
observed: ``the United States faces perhaps the most complex 
and volatile security environment since World War II.'' These 
encompass the violence and brutality fomented by the Islamic 
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Republic of Iraq and 
the Syrian Arab Republic; continued security challenges in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; regional aggression by the 
Russian Federation; destabilizing actions by the People's 
Republic of China in the South and East China Seas; continued 
tensions on the Korean peninsula; continued terrorism threats, 
instability, and the spread of global extremism particularly 
across the Middle East and North Africa; natural disasters; and 
the continued spread of lethal and disruptive technologies. 
They also serve to highlight the continued need for the U.S. 
military's flexibility and responsiveness in defending the 
Nation's interests and addressing security challenges, wherever 
and whenever they may arise. The committee understands that the 
capabilities of the Armed Forces are underpinned by the 
dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration, as well as the defense industrial base. Each of 
these elements is required to enable the U.S. military to be 
the guarantor of peace and economic security that it has been 
for generations.
    To shape the Nation's defense strategy, to include the 
longer-term direction of the Nation's forces, their missions 
and capabilities, and needed resources in this complex security 
environment, the committee looked to the March 2014 release of 
the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). 
However, as it noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) 
accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee believes 
the 2014 QDR ``missed a major opportunity'' to do just that. 
The National Defense Panel (NDP), which independently assessed 
the QDR and released its report in July 2014, came to a similar 
conclusion that the ``2014 QDR is not the long-term planning 
document envisioned by Congress.'' Thus, H.R. 3979 includes a 
provision that would reform the QDR process. A new Defense 
Strategy Review would require tradeoff analyses between 
missions, risks, and resources to better inform decisions on 
the longer-term direction of America's national security 
infrastructure, and the role of the NDP would be reshaped to 
provide inputs to the QDR process as well as review the final 
product.
    The committee exercised its oversight of the QDR process 
and the defense strategy contained therein through a series of 
Member-level and staff briefings. It also sought views from 
outside experts, chiefly the National Defense Panel. These 
included a hearing on the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review on 
April 3, 2014, a roundtable discussion between Members and NDP 
panelists on September 10, 2014, and a hearing on the National 
Defense Panel Assessment of the 2014 QDR on December 2, 2014. 
The committee also conducted its traditional oversight of U.S. 
defense policy and strategy through its annual posture and 
budget hearings involving the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretaries and chiefs, 
and the combatant commanders, that spanned from February to 
April 2014.
    While the committee understands that the annual defense 
budget must remain consistent with the caps contained in the 
Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and 
defense sequestration, it also continues to recognize the 
severe impacts these cuts have had, and will continue to have, 
on the military. These impacts were discussed in nearly every 
posture and budget hearing and briefing the committee 
conducted, as well as the QDR and NDP hearings. As the NDP 
concluded in its report, the BCA, on top of previous cuts to 
defense dating back to 2009, ``constitute[s] a serious 
strategic misstep'' and must be reversed. It further warned 
that these massive cuts will ``lead to a high risk force in the 
near future,'' have ``caused significant shortfalls in U.S. 
military readiness and both present and future capabilities,'' 
and have prompted allies and adversaries alike ``to question 
our commitment and resolve.'' The committee shares these 
concerns and is committed to continuing to provide full 
authorization for the funding required for the readiness of our 
military; to enhance the quality of life of military service 
members and their families; to sustain and improve the Armed 
Forces; and to properly safeguard the national security of the 
United States. To this end, H.R. 3979 would authorize $521.3 
billion in spending for national defense, consistent with the 
House budget, the President's budget request, and the Senate 
budget, and an additional $63.7 billion for Overseas 
Contingency Operations. This legislation would help ensure our 
troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world have 
the equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time 
needed to successfully complete their missions and return home; 
provide warfighters and their families with the resources and 
support they need, deserve, and have earned; invest in the 
capabilities and force structure needed to protect the United 
States from current and future threats; and mandate fiscal 
responsibility, transparency and accountability within the 
Department of Defense.

                         The War in Afghanistan

    The committee maintained four areas of focus with respect 
to the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including:
          (1) The efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al 
        Qaeda and associated groups such as the Haqqani 
        Network;
          (2) The performance of the Afghan National Security 
        Forces (ANSF) and the continuing retrograde of 
        International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 
        equipment;
          (3) The progress and signing of the Bilateral 
        Security Agreement between the United States and the 
        Government of Afghanistan; and
          (4) The post-2014 mission and associated authorities.
    The committee conducted numerous oversight activities, 
including Member-level and staff briefings and travel to 
Afghanistan and the region. Additionally, the committee 
convened hearings to complement the oversight of the policy, 
strategy, and post-2014 presence in Afghanistan, including a 
hearing with the ISAF commander on March 13, 2014, and a 
hearing with outside experts on July 29, 2014.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
extend a number of authorities that support congressional 
oversight of U.S. defense programs in Afghanistan. H.R. 3979 
would re-authorize the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, 
the authority for reintegration activities in Afghanistan, and 
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. These authorities support 
the ISAF commander's campaign plan in Afghanistan. 
Additionally, H.R. 3979 would include a description of U.S. 
policy and approach in Afghanistan, including that a top 
national security priority for the United States continues to 
be to support the stability and sovereignty of Afghanistan and 
to help Afghanistan ensure that its territory is not used by Al 
Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, or other violent extremist groups 
to launch attacks against the United States or its interests 
and that any drawdown of such U.S. military forces and 
operations should be considered in relation to security 
conditions on the ground in Afghanistan at the time of the 
drawdown and the recommendations of senior U.S. military 
commanders. Additionally, H.R. 3979 would express support for 
the security and rights of Afghan women. Lastly, H.R. 3979 
would provide for 4,000 additional Special Immigrant Visas and 
would amend section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-8) to allow for translators and interpreters 
who worked with U.S. military personnel at ISAF to be eligible 
for such visas.
    The committee will continue to conduct close oversight of 
the ANSF and understands the regional context that can 
influence outcomes in Afghanistan. As a result, H.R. 3979 
includes a report on the post-2014 mission in Afghanistan as 
well as a report on the plan to sustain the ANSF through 2017 
and on the bilateral cooperation between the United States and 
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on issues 
that relate to the war in Afghanistan. Also, H.R. 3979 would 
re-authorize the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), which reimburses 
certain countries, including Pakistan, for its direct support 
to Operation Enduring Freedom; however, this section also would 
require certifications from the Secretary of Defense on key 
aspects of the partnership with Pakistan before providing 
reimbursements through the CSF.

Force Protection

    The committee continued to emphasize force protection as a 
high priority issue for special oversight during the 113th 
Congress. Particular focus areas included those having direct 
impact on the safety of military personnel engaged in 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and other 
overseas contingency operations. The committee helped to 
expedite the promulgation of policies and the fielding of 
technology and equipment that prevented and/or reduced combat 
casualties.
    During the 113th Congress, through formal activity to 
include hearings, classified briefings, interaction with 
Government Accountability Office auditors and Department of 
Defense officials, the committee continued to maintain rigorous 
oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point 
for the battle against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The 
committee continued to examine and provide oversight on 
JIEDDO's current roles and missions, operational functions, 
organizational and force structure requirements, as well as 
current metrics for measuring success against countering the 
global IED threat. Further, the committee continued to receive 
monthly updates on JIEDDO's financial management and funding 
rates of obligation and execution, as well as monitor the use 
of recent expanded authority to transfer limited funds to the 
Department of State for the purposes of monitoring, disrupting, 
and interdicting the movement of explosive precursors from the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan to locations within Afghanistan. 
The committee also conducted oversight on the Department of 
Defense's many quick reaction capability (QRC) organizations, 
such as the Rapid Fielding Directorate and the Army's Rapid 
Equipping Force. In addition to this oversight of QRC 
organizations, the committee reviewed and examined the 
processes used by the Department of Defense to readily address 
urgent operational needs requested by the warfighter or 
combatant commanders currently involved in executing overseas 
contingency operations. The committee's intent was to ensure 
the warfighter had the necessary equipment, resources, 
authorities, and time required to successfully accomplish the 
mission. The committee also reviewed the Department of 
Defense's use of current rapid acquisition authority, and 
analyzed the justification for a flexible joint urgent 
operational needs fund.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
authorize $444.0 million for JIEDDO, as well as reauthorize 
existing transfer authorities and reporting requirements, to 
include JIEDDO's ability to transfer limited funding to the 
Department of State for the purposes described in the above 
paragraph. H.R. 3979 would also direct the Secretary of Defense 
to develop a plan to consolidate and/or eliminate some of the 
more than 30 QRC organizations currently operating in the 
Department of Defense.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
classified briefing on March 5, 2014, to receive an update on 
current and future counter-IED initiatives, as well as to 
receive JIEDDO's perspective on the recent Department of 
Defense Report relating to a National Security Agency 
contractor.

                                  Asia

    The United States has continued its Government-wide policy 
to ``rebalance'' to the Asia-Pacific region, and the committee 
has continued its oversight of the Department of Defense's 
implementation of this policy. In particular, the committee has 
continued to monitor the Department of Defense's strategy, 
force posture, and readiness, to ensure that U.S. forces are 
properly resourced and postured to protect U.S. national 
security interests.
    Events of the last year continue to highlight the security 
challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the continued 
unilateral efforts by the People's Republic of China to assert 
regional influence, particularly in the South and East China 
Seas, and the sustained threat to stability on the Korean 
peninsula from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In 
response, the United States has sought to strengthen its 
relationships with traditional treaty allies while also forging 
new relationships, particularly with partners in southeast 
Asia. The committee has closely overseen the Department of 
Defense's specific efforts to implement several posture and 
force structure initiatives in the region, including rotational 
deployments of Marines, naval, and air assets; forward pre-
positioning; infrastructure realignments; and training and 
exercises.
    The committee continued its Asia-Pacific oversight series 
that it began in 2013 under the leadership of Rep. J. Randy 
Forbes and Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa. In addition to the posture 
hearing with the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, the 
committee held a classified intelligence-operations brief on 
the Asia-Pacific region on January 8, 2014, a hearing on 
``Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific Region: Examining its 
Implementation'' with senior defense officials on January 28, 
2014, a classified briefing on the security situation on the 
Korean peninsula on April 2, 2014, a roundtable discussion 
between Members and senior defense officials on East Asia on 
July 24, 2014, and a roundtable discussion with commissioners 
from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on 
their 2014 Annual Report to Congress on November 20, 2014.
    The subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also 
held several oversight hearings and briefings as part of the 
Asia-Pacific oversight series, to include a hearing on China's 
maritime disputes on January 14, 2014, a hearing on China's 
counterspace program and the implications for U.S. national 
security on January 28, 2014, a briefing on ``Air Force and 
Naval Aircraft of the People's Republic of China Liberation 
Army: Order of Battle and Capabilities'' on February 4, 2014, 
and a hearing on ``Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities 
to Support the Asia Pacific Rebalance'' on February 27, 2014.
    The findings and conclusions from this oversight series 
informed H.R. 4495, the Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act, a 
bipartisan standalone bill introduced by Rep. J. Randy Forbes 
and Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa in the House of Representatives on 
April 28, 2014. Much of this legislation is incorporated into 
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
including the requirement for a Department of Defense (DOD) 
study on Taiwan's defense capabilities, an independent 
assessment on countering anti-access area denial capabilities, 
a DOD assessment on opportunities to increase regional missile 
defense cooperation, and a sense of Congress on the importance 
of the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Republic of Korea security 
relationships. H.R. 3979 also contains provisions related to 
the Department of Defense's development of a maritime security 
strategy and a requirement for a briefing on U.S.-China 
military-to-military engagements.
    The committee supplemented its hearings and briefings with 
official travel to the region, including a congressional 
delegation oversight trip led by Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' 
McKeon to Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, and Taiwan, and 
several staff oversight trips to east and southeast Asia.

                        Global War on Terrorism

    Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has dealt Al 
Qaeda repeated and significant blows during the global war on 
terrorism. Despite many notable successes, however, Al Qaeda 
remains potent in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, with its organization's 
affiliates continuing to expand in locations such as Somalia, 
Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and North Africa. The committee continued 
to conduct extensive oversight, often in classified form, on 
terrorism issues and emerging threats, giving particular 
attention to special operations capabilities, the changing 
nature of Al Qaeda's organization and operations, as well as 
efforts to build partner nation counterterrorism capabilities. 
The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities held several related hearings in this 
area including a hearing on February 13, 2013, ``The Fiscal 
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for 
U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Special Operations 
Forces''; on March 3, 2013, ``The Posture of the U.S. Central 
Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. 
Transportation Command''; on June 28, 2013, ``Past, Present, 
and Future Irregular Warfare Challenges''; on October 10, 2013, 
``Biodefense, Worldwide Threats and Countermeasures for the 
Department of Defense''; on March 13, 2014, ``The Fiscal Year 
2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the 
U.S. Special Operations Command and the Posture of the U.S. 
Special Operations Forces''; and on April 8, 2014, ``Fiscal 
Year 2015 Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reductions 
Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program: Combating 
Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing Global Environment.''
    Similarly, the committee held several related briefings 
including: a classified briefing on March 20, 2013, 
``Counterterrorism Operations Update'' which covered worldwide 
and current Department of Defense counterterrorism operations 
and authorities; on April 24, 2013, a classified briefing on 
``Weapons of Mass Destruction and Counterproliferation 
Programs''; on July 11, 2013, a classified briefing on 
``Exploitation of Materials Recovered during the Osama bin 
Laden Raid''; on July 31, 2013, a classified briefing on 
``Counterterrorism Policy and Operations Update''; on September 
12, 2013, a classified briefing on ``Counterterrorism 
Operations Update''; on October 16, 2013, a classified briefing 
on ``Counterterrorism Operations Update''; on October 23, 2013, 
a briefing on the state of Al Qaeda; on January 15, 2014, a 
classified briefing on ``Counterterrorism Operations and 
Intelligence Update''; and on July 9, 2014, a classified 
briefing on ``Update on Counterterrorism Operations and 1208 
Program Activity.'' The committee continued additional 
classified oversight functions on a continual basis including 
secure communications briefings and updates with senior 
Department of Defense officials on current activities most 
notably in cyber and global counterterrorism operations.
    As the United States strengthens and builds partnership 
capacity with key allies around the world, the committee has 
remain focused on the Department of Defense's efforts to 
aggressively fight the global war on terror and counter 
radicalism in the greater Middle East and across the globe. 
Ensuring security and stability in volatile regions that cannot 
adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory 
remains a top priority for the committee. Given the key role of 
U.S. Special Operations Forces, the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities continued to 
work with the full committee on authorities and programs that 
build foreign partner capacity. Specific contributions of the 
subcommittee in this area are reported elsewhere in this 
report.
    The Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities included several legislative provisions related to 
the global war on terrorism in H.R. 1960, that National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, 
and H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014. These include: a provision to reauthorize DOD 
personnel recovery authorities used by our military commanders 
and Special Operations Forces to plan and execute the safe 
recovery of U.S. personnel isolated during military and 
contingency operations; a provision directing the Secretary of 
Defense to review the future role of U.S. Special Operations 
Forces and U.S. Special Operations Command; a provision that 
clarified certain acquisition authorities of U.S. Special 
Operations Command; a provision modifying the Combating 
Terrorism Fellowship Program; a provision directing the 
Comptroller General to review medical countermeasures and the 
threat posed by genetically engineered bio-terror agents; a 
provision directing the Comptroller General to review threats 
posed by non-traditional chemical agents; and several defense 
intelligence provisions designed to support geographic 
combatant commander needs, requirements, and priorities. 
Additionally the subcommittee assisted the committee with 
several provisions within H.R. 3304 related to Weapons of Mass 
Destruction, Building Partnership Capacity, Security Force 
Assistance, Counterinsurgency, Sensitive Military Operations, 
Intelligence, and the regional conflicts in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, Syrian Arab Republic, State of Libya, 
and East Africa, which are addressed elsewhere in this report.
    In coordination with the committee, the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted 
additional oversight of specific issues related to the global 
war on terrorism, to include; special operations capabilities, 
counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation programs and 
activities; homeland defense and consequence management 
programs; intelligence policy, national intelligence programs, 
and Department of Defense elements part of the intelligence 
community. Further details on these subcommittee activities are 
provided elsewhere in this report.
    H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, 
included several legislative provisions related to global war 
on terrorism, including: a section that would extend the 
authority through fiscal year 2015 for the Secretary of Defense 
to offer and make rewards to a person providing information or 
nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government personnel or Government 
personnel of allied forces participating in a combined 
operation with U.S. Armed Forces conducted outside the United 
States against international terrorism or providing such 
information or assistance that is beneficial to force 
protection associated with such an operation; a section that 
would extend through 2017 the authority for support of special 
operations to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the 
Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as amended most recently by 
section 1203(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81); and a section that would 
extend by 1 year, the authority for non-conventional assisted 
recovery capabilities for conventional and Special Operations 
Forces pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(Public Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section 
1203(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). Additionally, the subcommittee 
assisted the committee with several provisions within H.R. 4435 
related to building partnership capacity, security force 
assistance, counterinsurgency, intelligence programs, and the 
regional conflicts in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
Republic of Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic, State of Libya, and 
East Africa, which are addressed elsewhere in this report.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
contains many of the same provisions as the House-passed 
version of the bill, including: a section that would extend the 
authority through fiscal year 2015 for the Secretary of Defense 
to offer and make rewards to a person providing information or 
nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government personnel or Government 
personnel of allied forces participating in a combined 
operation with U.S. Armed Forces conducted outside the United 
States against international terrorism or providing such 
information or assistance that is beneficial to force 
protection associated with such an operation; a section that 
would extend through 2017 and raise to $75 million the 
authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism 
pursuant to section 1208 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as 
amended most recently by section 1203(c) of Public Law 112-81; 
a section that would extend by 1 year the authority for non-
conventional assisted recovery capabilities for conventional 
and Special Operations Forces pursuant to subsection (h) of 
section 943 of Public Law 110-417, as amended most recently by 
section 1203(c) of Public Law 112-81; a provision that would 
provide additional rapid acquisition authorities to U.S. 
Special Operations Command; and a provision that would require 
the Secretary of Defense provide a plan for the transition of 
funding of U.S. Special Operations Command from supplemental 
funding for overseas contingency operations to recurring 
funding for future years defense programs. Additionally, the 
subcommittee assisted the committee with several provisions 
within H.R. 3979 related to building partnership capacity, 
security force assistance, counterinsurgency, intelligence 
programs, and the regional conflicts in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, Republic of Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic, State of 
Libya, and East Africa, which are addressed elsewhere in this 
report.

                       Central and South America

    The committee continued to oversee the programs and 
policies of the Department of Defense related to Central and 
South America. The committee maintained strong oversight of the 
security and stability of the United States' neighbors in the 
Western Hemisphere, including the Republic of Colombia, the 
United States of Mexico, the Republic of Honduras, El Salvador, 
the Republic of Guatemala, and the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela. In addition, the committee exerted oversight over 
the use of Department of Defense facilities in housing many 
unaccompanied alien children that were intercepted crossing the 
southern border of the United States in fiscal year 2014.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 contain 
several provisions that would reauthorize Department of Defense 
counternarcotics authorities for Colombia and provide 
additional resources for addressing counternarcotics and 
transnational organized crime in the region.

                                 Europe

    While the stability and security of Europe remain core U.S. 
national interests, recent aggression by the Russian Federation 
towards Ukraine and its neighbors has destabilized European 
security. Even though the Cold War ended in 1991 with the 
formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia's illegal 
annexation of Crimea and its continued arming and support of 
separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine has forced the United 
States and Europe to re-evaluate regional security and 
stability, as well as cooperation with Russia. In recent years, 
Russia has focused on reforming and modernizing its forces, 
with specific emphasis on the modernization of its conventional 
forces and improving the recruitment, training, and retention 
of its troops. The committee paid particular attention to the 
ongoing crisis in Ukraine and U.S.-Russia discussions on 
missile defense, conducting several committee briefings, staff-
level briefings, and Member engagements with senior Department 
of Defense and Department of State officials. The committee 
also followed U.S.-Russia nonproliferation activities and held 
several staff-level briefings on the current and future status 
of U.S.-Russian cooperation on nuclear security.
    European allies are strong partners of the U.S. military, 
contributing to a range of regional and global missions, 
including approximately 30 percent of the International 
Security Assistance Force training teams in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. European allies will continue to be a 
part of the Operation Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. 
However, the continuing constrained fiscal environment has 
created pressures on the region's militaries, defense budgets, 
and investments in future capabilities. North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) allies are concerned about the growing 
instability to their east and south, including Russia's illegal 
annexation of Crimea and continued support of pro-Russian 
separatists and the spread of violence and extremism in North 
Africa and the Middle East. At the Wales Summit in September 
2014, NATO allies reaffirmed their commitment to ``continue to 
invest in modern and deployable armed forces that can operate 
effectively together and at a high level of readiness to 
fulfill NATO tasks'' and committed to work towards their 
nation's defense budget achieving the NATO guideline of the 2 
percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The committee followed 
the NATO response to Russian aggression, including the 
development of the NATO Readiness Action Plan.
    The U.S. military force presence in Europe has declined 
dramatically since the end of the Cold War. There are currently 
only two Army Brigade Combat Teams based permanently in Europe. 
There remain significant advantages that come from European-
based U.S. troops, including the opportunity to train regularly 
with allied and partner forces at U.S. training centers in 
Europe, and the ability to plan and launch operations elsewhere 
in Europe, such as to reassure NATO allies, or in neighboring 
regions, such as the Middle East and Africa to respond to 
crises. The committee continued to examine overseas basing, 
including in Europe, to inform its views on a cost effective 
force posture to meet U.S. national security needs.
     H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
includes several provisions that address the new security 
situation in Europe and the U.S. strategy for reassuring NATO 
allies and deterring further Russian aggression. H.R. 3979 
would authorize $1.0 billion for 2 years for the European 
Reassurance Initiative, including $75.0 million for programs, 
activities, and support to the Government of Ukraine, and 
$174.4 million for military construction to improve key Eastern 
Europe infrastructure and exercise-support facilities. H.R. 
3979 would also require the Department of Defense to conduct a 
review of existing U.S. and NATO force posture, and provide to 
Congress a strategy and plan to enhance European security. H.R. 
3979 also includes a limitation on military cooperation between 
the United States and Russia, and an annual report through 2018 
on military and security developments involving Russia.

                      Addressing Emerging Threats

    The committee continued to focus attention on how the 
Department of Defense addresses the threats of terrorism, 
insurgency, and weapons of mass destruction proliferation, 
including how the Department addresses these threats in its 
strategic planning processes, how resources are arrayed to meet 
these threats, and how existing authorities are consistent with 
operational requirements. The committee also continued its 
oversight of numerous cross-cutting Department of Defense 
activities central to addressing these emerging and unforeseen 
threats, including counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, 
security force assistance, and building partnership capacity 
(BPC), all of which continue to receive attention in the 2014 
Quadrennial Defense Review.
    While there are roughly a dozen authorities that fall into 
the BPC category, the committee continued to devote particular 
attention to the global train and equip ``1206'' authority and 
the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). Since 2006, the 
committee has been increasingly active in this area, and the 
last several National Defense Authorization Acts have reflected 
what Congress considers to be the appropriate balance of 
providing sufficient authority for the most pressing needs of 
the Department of Defense, while encouraging a more integrated 
interagency approach to building partnership capacity. 
Furthermore, the committee continued its close monitoring and 
assessment of the execution of these BPC authorities, both 
during the initial congressional notification process and 
during program execution.
    The committee, as well as the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities (given the key role Special 
Operations Forces play in this area), continued its oversight 
of the full range of emerging threats to national security and 
U.S. military forces, and the capabilities needed to respond.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
includes several provisions that would reauthorize or expand 
existing authorities and require reports dealing with the 
Department of Defense's BPC authorities. H.R. 3979 would codify 
the existing ``1206'' global train and equip authority in title 
10, U.S. Code, but limit the fiscal year 2015 authorizing 
funding to $350.0 million. H.R. 3979 would also expand the GSCF 
authority, section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to include small-
scale military construction and the maintenance and sustainment 
of equipment provided, and extend the expiration of GSCF to 
September 30, 2017. H.R. 3979 would provide the Department of 
Defense with a global authority for 5 years to loan personnel 
protection and personnel survivability equipment to nations 
participating in coalition operations, but does not extend the 
existing authority limited to coalition operations in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. H.R. 3979 would also 
reauthorize several global counternarcotics authorities 
including authorities relating to the Republic of Colombia and 
to combating illicit trafficking, including illicit activities 
involving transnational organized crime. H.R. 3979 would codify 
the recurring limitations on the use of funds for assistance to 
units of foreign security forces that have committed gross 
violations of human rights, and also includes a provision that 
provides authority for the training of foreign security forces 
and associated security-related ministries of foreign countries 
to promote human rights and rule of law. Finally, H.R. 3979 
would require the Department of Defense to provide the 
congressional defense committees with a biennial report through 
2020 on the Department's programs to provide training, 
equipment, or other assistance or reimbursement to foreign 
security forces.

       Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters

    During the 113th Congress, the committee conducted 
extensive oversight of detainees who are being held in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and at U.S. Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). The committee held several Member 
briefings relating to detention policy issues, in addition to 
numerous staff briefings.
    With regard to detainee operations in Afghanistan, the 
committee focused on the transfer and release of detainees held 
in the Bagram detention facility, cases of recidivism, and the 
continued transition of detainees into Afghan custody. The 
committee specifically focused on the disposition of detainees 
who pose a continuing national security threat to the United 
States.
    With respect to detention operations at GTMO, the committee 
continued to monitor transfer and release policies and 
practices, as well as the use of the Military Commissions Act 
(Public Law 109-366; Public Law 111-84) to try detainees for 
war crimes.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
includes a 1-year prohibition on the transfer of GTMO detainees 
to the United States and a 1-year prohibition on the 
construction or modification of facilities in the United States 
to house GTMO detainees.

                              Intelligence

    The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted extensive oversight 
of defense intelligence activities. In the first session of the 
113th Congress, the committee and subcommittee conducted one 
hearing and several Member briefings on defense intelligence 
aspects of emerging national security issues as well as 
numerous staff briefings. The committee and the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities placed 
particular attention on: resource allocation for intelligence-
related programs both for effectiveness and affordability; 
defense intelligence strategies and policies in consideration 
of current and anticipated future threats; organization and 
management of the elements of the Department of Defense that 
are part of the intelligence community; and, the consideration 
and prioritization of defense intelligence requirements across 
the intelligence community. Additionally, the committee 
monitored the Department's security practices and information-
sharing policies following recent extensive unauthorized 
disclosures of classified information.
    In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee 
and Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities continued its oversight of defense intelligence 
activities. The committee received numerous Member briefings on 
defense intelligence aspects of emerging national security 
issues.
    On February 5, 2014, the subcommittee received a briefing 
on the Interim Report on Department of Defense Information 
Compromised by Edward Snowden. The briefing was provided by 
officials from the Joint Staff and the Defense Intelligence 
Agency. On April 4, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on 
the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Intelligence Activities. The witnesses were the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Director of 
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Director of the National 
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the Deputy Director of the 
National Security Agency. This hearing was followed up by a 
briefing to the subcommittee on April 10, 2014, with the 
intelligence chiefs of each of the Armed Services as well as 
U.S. Special Operations Command, regarding the budget request 
of their intelligence activities for fiscal year 2015. 
Additionally, on September 11, 2014, the subcommittee received 
a briefing regarding an update on the unauthorized disclosures 
by Edward Snowden of the Department of Defense information.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
direct several intelligence-related provisions, including: a 
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 
on the extent of unauthorized disclosures and mitigation 
efforts; improving personnel security procedure and insider 
threat monitoring; a prohibition on separation or consolidation 
of the portions of the Department of Defense budget that are 
identified as part of the National Intelligence Program; a 
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to appoint an 
executive agent to oversee the Tactical Exploitation of 
National Capabilities programs within the military services; 
and a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense and 
the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive review and 
assessment of intelligence activities, authorities and programs 
of U.S. Special Operations Command and Special Operations 
Forces.

                      National Guard and Reserves

    The committee continued its oversight efforts focused on 
current equipment investment strategies for the National Guard 
and Reserve Components with particular emphasis on 
affordability and modernization of critical dual-use equipment 
platforms that are essential to the National Guard's title 32, 
United States Code, mission; defense support to civil 
authorities. H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, would direct an additional $400.0 million 
to adequately resource under-funded critical dual-use equipment 
requirements for the National Guard and Reserve Component.
    H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included a provision 
that provided pay and allowance parity for the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau and the Senior Enlisted Adviser to the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau among senior members of the 
Armed Forces. Additionally H.R. 4435 included a provision that 
allowed the per-fiscal year calculation of days of Active Duty 
for members of the Reserves to reduce eligibility age for 
retirement for non-regular service to cross fiscal years.

                        The Continent of Africa

    The committee conducted regular oversight of the continent 
of Africa, including numerous staff level briefings and a 
hearing with the Commander of U.S. Africa Command on March 5, 
2014.
    The Department of Defense undertook Operation United 
Assistance to address the Ebola virus in West Africa in 2014. 
The Department requested and received approval for the 
reprogramming of $750.0 million in Overseas Humanitarian, 
Disaster and Civic Aid funds to conduct this mission. 
Approximately 3,200 U.S. troops have also been deployed to the 
region. The Department's mission includes conducting command 
and control of the operation, constructing 12 Ebola Treatment 
Units, delivering medical training, and providing air and sea 
lift of supplies. The committee continued to conduct close 
oversight of Operation United Assistance, including convening a 
classified Member-level briefing and holding numerous staff 
briefings.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
express support for the U.S. mission to assist the Republic of 
Uganda People's Defense Force as they combat the Lord's 
Resistance Army and attempt to remove or apprehend Joseph Kony. 
Additionally, H.R. 3979 would require a report by the Secretary 
of State and the Secretary of Defense on the Marine Corps 
Security Guard program for diplomatic facilities globally, as 
well as a report on the ``New Normal'' and general mission 
requirements for U.S. Africa Command. H.R. 3979 also would 
provide an authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide 
preference for goods or services from the Republic of Djibouti. 
The committee recognizes the partnership between the United 
States and the Government of Djibouti. Finally, H.R. 3979 would 
authorize the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which would 
allow for the provision of support and assistance to foreign 
security forces, groups, or individuals for counterterrorism or 
crisis response missions within the region of U.S. Africa 
Command.

    Department of Defense Response to the Attack on the Diplomatic 
                     Facilities in Benghazi, Libya

    Immediately after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya 
on September 11, 2012, the committee, with support from the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, began an 
extensive effort to evaluate the Department of Defense's 
response. In addition to assessing how the Department reacted 
to the terrorist strike, the committee sought to determine what 
preparations the U.S. military had made for such an event, and 
what arrangements had subsequently been put into place to 
minimize the possibility of a recurrence.
    In 2013, the committee sent the Department three requests 
for information. Hundreds of pages of written material, much of 
it classified, were received and reviewed. The committee also 
convened two open hearings and five classified Member 
briefings. General and flag officers and senior civilian 
defense officials appeared before the committee to provide 
information about the Department's actions in connection with 
the attack, and to describe constraints on deploying other 
forces, including drones and fighter aircraft during the 
attack. The committee also heard from field-grade officers who 
were in Libya at the time, or in contact with those who were, 
to discern their understanding of events and the Department's 
operational limitations.
    The Benghazi attacks were the subject of two full committee 
events: one briefing and one hearing. The briefing, entitled 
``Intelligence and Operations in North and East Africa'' was 
held on February 6, 2013. The witnesses were Ms. Amanda Dory, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs; Mr. 
William Wechsler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Special Operations and Combating Terrorism; Major General 
Michael Nagata, USA, Deputy Director for Special Operations, 
Joint Staff; and Mr. George Kuk, Intelligence Analyst, Defense 
Intelligence Agency. The hearing, entitled ``The Posture of the 
U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command'' was held on 
March 15, 2013. The witnesses were General Carter F. Ham, USA, 
Commander, U.S. Africa Command, and Admiral James G. Stavridis, 
USN, Commander, U.S. European Command.
    Furthermore, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held four briefings and one hearing on Benghazi 
related issues. The first briefing was held on May 21, 2013, 
covering ``DOD's Preparation for, and Response to, the 
Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.'' 
Briefers were: Mr. Garry Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity 
Conflict, and Major General Darryl Roberson, USAF, Vice 
Director, Operations, Joint Staff. The next briefing in the 
series was held on June 26, 2013, and shared the same title as 
the first. It focused on the activities of U.S. Africa Command 
and U.S. Special Operations Command in connection with the 
response to the attack. Briefers were: General Carter F. Ham, 
USA (ret.), Commander of U.S. Africa Command at the time of the 
assault; Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Gibson, USA, former commander, 
Site Security Team, U.S. Embassy Tripoli; Rear Admiral Brian 
Losey, Commander, Special Operations Command Africa.
    Colonel George Bristol, Commander of Joint Special 
Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, appeared before the 
subcommittee in part three of the briefing series on July 31, 
2013, to describe his role in responding to the attacks. The 
final briefing to date took place on October 10, 2013, when 
General Martin Dempsey, USA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, appeared before the subcommittee to brief on ``The 
Defense Department's force posture and response to the 2012 
attacks in Benghazi, Libya.''
    The sole subcommittee hearing on Benghazi was held on 
September 19, 2013. Mr. Garry Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and 
Major General Darryl Roberson, USAF, Vice Director, Operations, 
on the Joint Staff appeared before the subcommittee to testify 
on ``The Defense Department's Posture for September 11, 2013: 
What are the Lessons of Benghazi?''
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued 
this work in 2014.
    Furthermore, as a result of the committee's activities, 
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, directed the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
Secretary of State, to convey a report to the committee on 
lessons learned from the Benghazi attack. The report would 
assess the military's posture and readiness, describe the 
ability of the U.S. military to respond to requests from the 
Department of State for supplemental embassy security forces, 
and identify possible related intelligence enhancements.
    In addition, H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as 
passed by the House, would make a series of findings; express 
the sense of Congress; require a determination; and require the 
submission of a report regarding the individuals responsible 
for the attack against United States personnel in Benghazi, 
Libya and a counterterrorism strategy related to North Africa. 
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
includes this provision with an amendment that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on Department of 
Defense efforts to hold the individuals responsible for the 
attack against United States personnel in Benghazi, Libya 
accountable and require the President to submit a report on 
various security related matters in North Africa, West Africa, 
and the Sahel.

                                  Iran

    The committee continued to conduct oversight of the threat 
posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear 
weapon to U.S. interests, U.S. allies, and countries in the 
region of Iran. The committee received numerous staff-level 
briefings and a Member-level briefing in closed session on 
Middle East intelligence and operations, which included 
analysis on Iran. Additionally, the committee held hearings on 
overall Middle East Policy on February 11, 2014, and on the 
P5+1 negotiations on Iran's nuclear program on June 19, 2014. 
Further, the subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a classified 
briefing on November 18, 2014, on Iran and implications of 
sanctions relief.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
re-authorize the Iran Military Power Report through December 
2016 and would authorize reports on the Joint Plan of Action or 
a final, comprehensive deal, including verification of whether 
Iran is complying with such agreement and an assessment of the 
overall state of the nuclear program of Iran for 10 years after 
the date of the enactment of the Act.

              Operation Inherent Resolve, Iraq, and Syria

    U.S. force posture in the Republic of Iraq has changed 
significantly during fiscal year 2014. Formerly, U.S. forces 
deployed to Iraq were limited to those associated with the 
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). Currently, U.S. 
forces continue to support OSC-I, but, now, the United States 
is engaged in a military campaign against the Islamic State in 
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and the Syrian Arab 
Republic.
    The committee continues to conduct oversight of the 
security environment in Iraq and the activities of OSC-I, 
Operation Inherent Resolve, and broader policy issues in Syria 
and Iraq such as U.S. policy towards the Assad regime, the 
Syria train and equip program, and the Iraq train and equip 
program. The committee has received a number of staff-level 
briefings on OSC-I and the security situations in Iraq, Syria, 
and the region as well as the train and equip programs being 
contemplated in Iraq and Syria. Additionally, the committee 
received multiple Member-level briefings in closed session on 
Iraq, Syria, and the region, and held hearings on U.S. policy 
in the Middle East on February 11, 2014, the security situation 
in Iraq and Syria on July 29, 2014, and the Administration's 
strategy against ISIL on September 18, 2014, and November 13, 
2014.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
re-authorize OSC-I and would allow for OSC-I to conduct 
operational training on bases of the Government of Iraq. 
Additionally, H.R. 3979 would authorize the training and 
equipping of the Iraq Security Forces, Kurdish Security Forces, 
tribal security forces, and local security forces through 
December 2016. H.R. 3979 would also allow for the training and 
equipping of appropriately vetted elements of the groups and 
individuals of the Syrian opposition through December 2016. 
Finally, H.R. 3979 would authorize the Counterterrorism 
Partnership Fund, which would allow for the provision of 
support and assistance to foreign security forces, groups, or 
individuals for counterterrorism or crisis response missions 
within the region of U.S. Central Command, but not to the 
Government of Iraq due to the authorization for the Iraq train 
and equip program.

                        The Greater Middle East

    The committee continued robust oversight of the security 
situation and U.S. policy and strategy within the greater 
Middle East region. The committee received a number of staff 
and Member-level briefings on this issue area and held a 
hearing on U.S. policy in the Middle East on February 11, 2014, 
and a hearing on the state of Al Qaeda on February 4, 2014. The 
committee also held hearings with the Commander of U.S. Central 
Command and the Commander of U.S. Africa Command on March 5, 
2014.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
authorize the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which would 
allow for the provision of support and assistance to foreign 
security forces, groups, or individuals for counterterrorism or 
crisis response missions within the region of U.S. Central 
Command and U.S. Africa Command, but not to the Government of 
the Republic of Iraq due to the separate authorization for the 
Iraq train and equip program. H.R. 3979 would also require the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 
State and the Director of National Intelligence, to provide an 
independent assessment on Al Qaeda, including its affiliates, 
its associated groups, and adherents since September 11, 2001. 
Finally, H.R. 3979 would require the President to provide a 
detailed summary of the planning guidance to deny safe haven to 
Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.

                  FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY


                                Overview

    The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's 
budget and identified inefficiencies to capture and reinvest 
savings into higher national security priorities. The Joint 
Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, reflects the fact that the Nation 
must examine every aspect of the defense enterprise to find 
ways to accomplish the mission of providing for the common 
defense more effectively.
    During the first session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee continued its oversight of efforts by the Department 
of Defense (DOD) to improve its fiscal responsibility, 
transparency, and accountability, and to further identify 
opportunities to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee 
continued to monitor the Department's efforts to implement the 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan, 
including holding a Member-level briefing with senior DOD 
financial officials to receive an update on the FIAR plan on 
December 9, 2014, and has continued to monitor efforts 
announced by the Secretary of Defense in July 2013, to identify 
cost savings through management efficiencies and overhead 
reductions within the Department's major headquarters. While 
such cost savings and efficiency efforts are ``good 
government'' measures to undertake under any budget conditions, 
they have taken on increased importance as the Department works 
to absorb the cuts to defense resulting from the Budget Control 
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25).
    Additional oversight in this area conducted during the 
second session of the 113th Congress follow below.

        Organization and Management of the Department of Defense

    The committee continued to review the organization and 
management of the Department of Defense in order to ensure that 
it is properly postured to meet the complex and evolving 
security threats of the 21st century. Declining resources 
resulting from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-
25) and defense sequestration are driving the Department of 
Defense to reevaluate its organization and management structure 
to identify cost savings. The Department continues to implement 
organizational and management changes within the Department's 
major headquarters resulting from the announcement by the 
Secretary of Defense in July 2013, to identify cost savings 
through management efficiencies and overhead reductions. 
According to the Department, these management reforms, 
consolidations, personnel cuts, and spending reductions are 
planned to reduce the Department's overhead and operating costs 
by some $10 billion over the next 5 years and almost $40 
billion over the next 10 years. In holding the Department to 
these objectives and ensuring these reductions are done smartly 
and strategically, H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015, includes provisions that would require the Secretary 
of Defense to report on the feasibility of reducing or 
consolidating combatant command function and a plan to 
implement a periodic review and analysis of management 
headquarters.
    Out of concern for some of the organizational changes being 
implemented by the Department, H.R. 3979 would restore the 
Office of Net Assessment (ONA) to its independent status, with 
the Office reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense, and 
increases the ONA budget for fiscal year 2015 by $10 million to 
$18.9 million. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying 
H.R. 3979 includes language expressing concern about 
organizational changes within the Office of the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy, specifically the abolishment of the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, 
and reservation about the potential for ``less senior-level 
attention paid to nuclear forces, deterrence, nonproliferation, 
and terrorism.''

                          Financial Management

    The committee continues to oversee military effectiveness 
in this era of declining budgets. The Department of Defense has 
already identified a decrease of $487.0 billion over a 10-year 
period based on fiscal constraints. Additional reductions to 
defense resources, to include mechanisms such as sequestration, 
could affect the quality of our military force as the 
Department looks to successfully perform its role in the 
National Security Strategy.
    The Comptroller General of the United States has 
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial 
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department's 
inability to track and account for billions of dollars in 
funding and tangible assets continues to undermine its 
management approach. It also creates a lack of transparency 
that significantly limits congressional oversight. The 
Department's inability to produce auditable financial 
statements undermines its efforts to reform defense acquisition 
processes and to realize efficiencies. Without these objective 
tools, neither the Department nor Congress can verify that 
greater value is being created. As a result, the committee 
continues to monitor the Department's efforts to implement the 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to 
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements, and monitor 
closely the interdependencies between FIAR and the hundreds of 
millions of dollars being spent on business systems 
modernization programs that the Department has proposed to 
address its financial management problems.
    The committee received the statutorily mandated semi-annual 
updates on the FIAR plan in May and November in both 2013 and 
2014. Supporting the Department's goal of achieving audit 
readiness by the end of 2017, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) 
included a provision that would clarify the intent of the 
Department to have a full and complete audit on all fiscal year 
2018 financial materials, with the results of the audit 
submitted to Congress by March 31, 2019.
    The committee received notification that while a vast 
majority of appropriations will be able to have an audit 
performed on their Statement of Budgetary Activity, the 
Statement of Budgetary Resources would not be audit ready by 
September 30, 2014. The committee awaits a remediation strategy 
from the Department that describes an alternative deadline by 
which an auditable statement of budgetary resources will be 
achieved, and a description of the plan for meeting that 
alternative deadline, as instructed by section 1005 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 
Law 112-239).

                           Acquisition Issues


Matters Related to Acquisition Policy

    The committee continued its long-standing efforts to 
improve the defense acquisition system and to address standing 
concerns about cost growth in major defense acquisition 
programs and the responsiveness of the system to compelling 
military needs. The committee worked to improve acquisition 
outcomes by addressing the acquisition environment with a focus 
on the culture, processes, regulations, and statutes driving 
acquisition decisions in the Department of Defense, industry, 
and Congress. The committee examined potential areas for 
improving defense acquisition activities to include reforming 
the process for reviewing and certifying requirements for major 
defense acquisition programs; reforming operational contract 
support; improving the education, skills and experience of the 
acquisition workforce; protecting supply availability of 
strategic materials; and establishing greater transparency and 
accountability in services contracting activities.
    Despite the committee's efforts in these areas, the 
committee remains concerned about significant shortcomings in 
the current acquisition system. Therefore, in October 2013, the 
committee initiated a long-term effort, led by Vice Chairman 
Mac Thornberry, to generate lasting improvements in the system. 
This reform effort started with an examination of acquisition 
reform efforts of the previous decades in order to understand 
why these well-intentioned reform efforts have not yet produced 
an improved acquisition system. The committee held a hearing on 
October 29, 2013, ``Twenty-five years of acquisition reform: 
Where do we go from here?'' where the committee received 
testimony from a panel of outside experts. This foundational 
hearing was followed by three additional scheduled hearings 
focused on the acquisition processes of the Department of 
Defense.
    On February 12, 2014, the committee had planned a hearing 
on ``Overcoming Obstacles in Acquisition Reform'' which was 
canceled due to weather. Despite the cancellation, the chairman 
of the committee invited all available Members of the committee 
to meet at the allotted time to discuss the topic with the 
witnesses. Following that event, the committee met on June 24, 
2014, to receive additional testimony from a panel of outside 
experts on ``Case Studies in DOD Acquisition: Finding What 
Works''.
    After hearing multiple testimonies from outside experts on 
these matters, the committee convened on July 8, 2014, to 
receive testimony from the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) and the Acting Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Readiness and Force Management) to 
discuss the Department's efforts to improve the acquisition 
system.
    In addition to the committee's formal activities regarding 
acquisition policy improvements, the committee also sent 
letters to several industrial base representatives and union 
representatives to seek views of the defense industry on how to 
improve the Department of Defense acquisition system. In 
working to understand and fix the root causes behind why, after 
decades of various reform efforts, many Department of Defense 
acquisition programs continue to run over cost and behind 
schedule, the committee also sent a letter to all committee 
Members on July 30, 2014, asking for each Member to consult 
with local stakeholders and to provide specific suggestions on 
acquisition policy changes. Furthermore, the committee sent a 
letter to the Secretary of Defense on October 6, 2014, 
requesting the Department communicate any views, including any 
legislative or policy proposals related to this reform effort, 
on a rolling basis, rather than withhold those views to 
coincide with the release of the President's budget request. 
Timely and actionable responses to these queries will be an 
invaluable contribution to the committee's efforts moving 
forward.
    The committee also continued to actively work with the 
Department of Defense to review the application of regulatory 
frameworks so as to begin eliminating unnecessary overhead, red 
tape, and bureaucracy. Furthermore, the committee recognizes 
that service contracting represents an increasingly important 
and large proportion of the acquisition expenditures of the 
Department of Defense and yet the majority of previous reform 
efforts have focused primarily on major defense acquisition 
programs. The Department currently lacks accurate and reliable 
data on contracted services, and the military departments have 
not developed plans to use that data to inform workforce 
planning, workforce mix, and budget decision making. Therefore, 
the committee has continued its efforts to strengthen oversight 
of these matters by reviewing the management structure for 
these contracts and increasing the visibility and transparency 
of these contracts by reviewing service contract inventories.
    The committee also worked aggressively to improve the 
Department's ability to contract in a contingency environment. 
The committee worked directly with the Joint Staff and others 
to improve requirements development and planning for 
operational contract support. However, the committee believes 
that more emphasis is needed in this area and the committee 
will continue to address this matter through visits to the 
individual combatant commands and other engagements. The 
committee notes that the Department conducted a joint exercise 
in early 2014 to specifically focus on planning, training, 
execution, and management of operational contract support. The 
committee applauds these efforts and expects this exercise and 
other events focused on developing the Department's ability to 
effectively and efficiently contract in support of contingency 
operations will greatly strengthen the competency of the 
acquisition workforce. Furthermore, the committee included 
several sections in H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015, which would expand prohibitions on contracting with 
the enemy. These sections would expand the authorities provided 
in section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to other Federal 
agencies.
    The committee recognizes that a fundamental component in 
addressing most of the problems in the acquisition process is 
improving the composition and quality of the acquisition 
workforce. Therefore, the committee continued to closely 
monitor the development of the acquisition workforce, the 
execution and management of the Department of Defense 
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, and other efforts by 
the Department to expand and improve the acquisition workforce. 
As part of this effort, the committee included a provision, 
section 853 of H.R. 3979, requesting additional information on 
the effect of program manager tenure and career development on 
acquisition outcomes.
    The committee is aware that the problems in the defense 
acquisition system have been persistent and resistant to past 
reform efforts, and the committee recognizes that there are no 
``silver bullet'' reform packages that can immediately fix the 
current acquisition system in a holistic manner. Therefore, the 
committee believes its reform effort will be an ongoing and 
iterative process that will continue to be embedded in the 
committee's regular work.

Defense Industrial Base Matters

    The committee continued to monitor closely the health, 
security, and innovative capacity of the defense industrial 
base, especially in light of changes to the defense strategy, 
the need for recapitalization and modernization after 13 years 
of war, and continuing budget pressures. The committee is aware 
that the industrial base for complex major weapon systems has 
shrunk dramatically in the past decade, limiting the ability of 
the Department of Defense to control costs, encourage 
innovation, and reap the benefits of competition.
    The weakening of the defense industrial base and the 
increasingly global nature of business will continue to 
challenge the capabilities of current systems used to monitor 
industrial security. In addition to overseeing the 
effectiveness of the Defense Security Service to carry out this 
mission, the committee continued to examine traditional 
mechanisms for industrial security, such as the personnel 
security clearance process, the National Industrial Security 
Program, and other areas where adversaries could exploit 
vulnerabilities or loopholes in the acquisition process to 
undermine the U.S. defense industrial base.
    The committee also noted that industry is struggling in 
many cases to make the long-term investments that are vital to 
the health of the defense industrial base, notably so in the 
shipbuilding industry. Therefore, the committee continued its 
oversight activities in these areas and included provisions in 
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that 
would:
          (1) Provide for a temporary extension of, and 
        amendments to, the test program for negotiation of 
        comprehensive small business subcontracting plans;
          (2) Require a plan for improving data on bundled or 
        consolidated contracts;
          (3) Provide authority for Procurement Technical 
        Assistance Centers to provide education to small 
        businesses on certain requirements of Arms Export 
        Control Act (Public Law 94-329);
          (4) Address matters related to the improper use of 
        reverse auctions and other low-price contracting 
        approaches; and
          (5) Improve contracting opportunities for women-owned 
        small businesses.

Information Technology and Business Systems

    Information technology (IT) systems are critical enablers 
for the Department of Defense. As the IT budget represents 
nearly $32 billion of the Department of Defense's total budget, 
it also represents a major investment area requiring the same 
rigorous planning and oversight as any other complex major 
weapon system. The Department recognized this area as a source 
of greater efficiencies and has managed to reduce spending in 
IT by several billion dollars across the Future Years Defense 
Program. The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities continued reviewing the 
Department's IT investment planning and acquisitions to reduce 
unwarranted duplication and eliminate programs of little value 
to the warfighter. The committee has paid particular attention 
to the various IT business systems of the Department where 
egregious programmatic failures, such as the Air Force's 
Expeditionary Combat Support System, have occurred, and which 
are also critical components in the Department's strategy to 
achieve auditability.
    The committee held related hearings on March 13, 2013, on 
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization 
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force'' and on March 
12, 2014, on ``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: 
Modernization and Policy Issues in a Changing National Security 
Environment.'' In addition to hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities held briefings 
on a number of related topics, including: Department of Defense 
Electromagnetic Pulse as required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) on 
May 16, 2013; and Information Technology Acquisition Policy and 
Practices on January 9, 2014. Additionally, the subcommittee 
conducted detailed oversight of specific programmatic issues 
related to IT.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee included a directive related to information 
technology, requiring a briefing on the progress of 
implementing an IT-specific acquisition process for the 
Department of Defense.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions 
related to information technology, including: a strategy on 
improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility; a 
limitation on funds for Air Force Logistics modernization; a 
briefing on the biometric activities of the Department of 
Defense; a revision to the reporting requirement for annual 
submission of information regarding information technology 
capital assets; modification of reporting requirements for 
Department of Defense business systems; a change in the report 
for critical changes to major automated information systems; a 
revision to the definition for legacy systems in Defense 
business enterprise architecture; and an extension of the 
information technology exchange program.
    H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, 
included several legislative provisions related to information 
technology, including: a section that would require the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a review of 
the Air Force Network-Centric Solutions II (NETCENTS II) 
contract and provide a certification that it is effective in 
delivering information technology capabilities for the joint 
force; a provision that would amend section 2222 of title 10, 
United States Code, to expand certification requirements, 
investment review processing and enterprise architecture 
requirements from defense business systems to all defense 
information technology systems; and a section that would 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a certification that 
defense mission-critical infrastructure requiring 
electromagnetic pulse protection that receives power supply 
from commercial or other non-military sources is protected from 
the adverse effects of man-made or naturally occurring 
electromagnetic pulse.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included several directives 
related to information technology, including: requiring a 
report on the findings of a review of the High Performance 
Computing Modernization Program; a plan to provide internet 
access to families on Kwajalein Atoll; a briefing on a 
comprehensive strategy for developing and fielding an 
information management architecture for the Department's 
Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Response Enterprise; a 
review of MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2 to determine if the 
standards are in need of updating based on the current and 
future projected threats; an Inspector General review of 
Department of Defense noncompetitive information technology 
contracts to determine whether they were properly justified as 
sole source; and a briefing that identifies all of the major 
funded activities within each of the military services and 
defense agencies that currently contribute to the Joint 
Information Environment.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
included several legislative provisions related to information 
technology, including: a requirement to develop standards and 
define architectures necessary to enable open systems 
approaches in key mission areas of the Department of Defense; a 
report on implementation of acquisition processes for 
information technology systems; revisions to section 2222 of 
title 10, United States Code; development and implementation of 
operational effectiveness metrics for the Joint Information 
environment; a requirement to migrate the Army Distributed 
Common Ground System to open architecture; enhanced authority 
for Chief Information Officers of certain covered agencies; 
improved reporting and program reviews for certain information 
technology programs of the civilian agencies; and 
implementation of a Federal data center consolidation 
initiative.

                               READINESS


                      Strategic Military Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness focused strategic oversight 
efforts for the 113th Congress on Department of Defense 
military training, logistics, maintenance, military 
construction, installations, family housing, and the base 
closure and realignment process. The committee also focused 
oversight efforts on the civilian personnel workforce, energy 
security, and environmental issues that affect Department of 
Defense operations across the globe. The committee remains 
concerned about the detrimental impacts of the Budget Control 
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) on military readiness and the 
budgetary constraints that led to lost training opportunities, 
delayed or deferred ship deployments, missed depot 
availabilities, and deferred maintenance requirements.
    The committee visited numerous overseas bases to assess the 
skills of assigned forces, the material condition of equipment, 
the readiness challenges associated with forward deployed force 
presence, in addition to the appropriate application of 
military construction in the overseas and contingency 
operations environments. Oversight trips included visits to 
countries such as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Turkey, 
and Jordan to examine U.S. Central Command's plans to sustain 
operations while simultaneously withdrawing forces and 
equipment from Afghanistan. Additionally, the committee 
conducted close oversight of expanding operations in the U.S. 
Africa Command area of responsibility, the development of 
various crisis response capabilities under the ``New Normal'' 
execution order, and maiden deployments of new capabilities, 
such as the Littoral Combat Ship.
    The Department's readiness posture and ability to respond 
to new and emerging threats, such as terrorist movements in the 
Islamic Republic of Iraq and in Syria, an Ebola outbreak in 
West Africa, and the Russian incursion into Ukraine, remained 
key areas of oversight, particularly after implementation of 
the new Defense Strategic Guidance. The committee continues to 
assess Department of Defense force-generation capabilities, its 
ability to return to training for full-spectrum operations, and 
the alignment of military forces to fulfill two primary 
strategic demands: rotational presence and crisis contingency 
preparedness.
    Despite short-term readiness gains in the past year, the 
return of sequestration-level funding in fiscal year 2016 will 
lead to a military that cannot continue to operate at current 
levels and provide a fully ready, globally responsive force in 
the manner that ensures the morale, welfare, and safety of U.S. 
Armed Forces. Consequently, the committee will continue to 
aggressively oversee and monitor the impacts of sequestration 
as a result of Public Law 112-25.

                            Force Readiness

    The preservation and restoration of force readiness remains 
the committee's highest priority. The committee will continue 
to examine the readiness of deployed personnel supporting 
ongoing contingencies worldwide, in addition to the ability of 
the services to conduct full-spectrum combat surge or 
contingency missions and the Department's ability to maintain 
capabilities in the decades to come. The committee monitored 
both the short-term and long-term impacts of sequestration on 
operational tempo and sought to correct current readiness 
shortfalls in equipment, personnel, and training to include 
flying hours, steaming days, and full-spectrum training miles 
through a series of briefings. Coinciding with this effort, the 
committee held hearings on the readiness posture of the 
individual military departments, Navy surface fleet 
maintenance, potential risks associated with sequestration, and 
the Department's over-reliance on Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO) funding to fund base-level requirements.
    The committee noted that, while slight improvements in 
readiness across the total force occurred in 2014, non-deployed 
units continued to face readiness challenges including 
equipment unavailability, personnel shortages, and lost 
training opportunities. The committee notes that the impacts of 
sequestration and top-line budget reductions will continue to 
pose a long-term risk to readiness for the foreseeable future. 
The committee remains concerned that these challenges pose a 
significant threat to national security and the safety and 
security of the Armed Forces.
    To better understand the unique challenges sequestration 
presents to the total force readiness, the Joint Explanatory 
Statement to accompany H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015, directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
to review readiness trends and risks within the military 
departments with a particular focus on gaps between combatant 
commander requirements and operational plan execution. Further, 
the committee mandated changes to the Quarterly Readiness 
Report to Congress, requiring the Department to provide greater 
clarity and visibility on changes to military readiness both 
within geographic combatant commands and the Defense combat 
support agencies, in addition to providing details on the 
efficacy of major exercises and data on the Nation's military 
readiness for cyber operations.
    The committee also tasked GAO with key assessments on 
emerging readiness issues, such as forward-deployed naval 
forces and associated sustainment issues, the Department of 
Defense's Arctic capabilities, and contracts for services 
spending. Finally, H.R. 3979 would provide the Secretary of the 
Navy an exception to Title 10 maintenance requirements for the 
purpose of a 2-year pilot program, for no more than three 
Littoral Combat Ship vessels, in order to permit corrective and 
preventive maintenance during extended deployments.
    With the drawdown of operations in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan and the escalation of operations elsewhere in the 
world, the committee anticipates a smaller decrease than 
forecast in the realignment of funds from the Department's 
Overseas Contingency Operations budget to the operation and 
maintenance base budgets, which may present challenges to fully 
understanding and resourcing steady-state operations tempo. To 
address this issue, H.R. 3979 would require the Department of 
Defense to include an analysis of enduring mission requirements 
for equipping, training, sustainment, and other operation and 
maintenance activities that are financed by the OCO budget as 
part of the next Defense Strategy Review.
    The committee also remains concerned that a full reset of 
the total force remains at risk in a constrained budget 
environment. Subsequently, the committee provided rigorous 
oversight of ongoing property accountability, retrograde, and 
depot maintenance efforts. Further, the committee will continue 
to monitor the disposition of non-standard equipment returning 
from Afghanistan to ensure that defense articles are budgeted 
for and sustained properly and that excess equipment is 
reutilized by partner nations or U.S. state and local entities 
to the maximum extent possible to minimize waste.
    Overall, while the committee believes that readiness levels 
have improved across the military services, readiness remains 
fragile and is vulnerable to changes in mission, competing 
resource priorities, and is contingent upon forecasted 
deployments to support operations in Afghanistan and Syria and 
Iraq. This fragility is especially acute with respect to non-
deployed ground-force units which have sacrificed their 
readiness in order to provide additional resources to deployed, 
or next-to-deploy, units. The committee remains concerned about 
the number of these non-deployed units reporting they are not 
ready for their core missions or would need additional time, 
personnel, and equipment to prepare for deployment. In 
response, the committee held a number of briefings and 
hearings, and conducted multiple oversight visits to affected 
units.
    The committee remains concerned about future readiness 
levels, given the return of sequestration in fiscal year 2016 
and a lower end-strength, which has reduced the Army's capacity 
to undertake additional missions, such as providing logistical 
and medical support to counter the spread of Ebola in West 
Africa or helping reassure allies in Europe through the 
European Reassurance Initiative, and has increased the risk to 
major contingencies. This increased risk includes the Army's 
new operational construct of a Regionally Aligned Force (RAF), 
which has seen success in supporting geographical combatant 
commanders and U.S. diplomatic missions abroad through smaller, 
tailored deployments. To help Congress better understand the 
RAF concept and better inform resourcing decisions, H.R. 3979 
included an Army assessment of the RAF concept and tasked the 
Army with a re-evaluation of other strategic assets, such as 
prepositioned stocks, and their ability to support RAF 
operations.
    Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of 
maintaining Army readiness. The committee notes the positive 
trends in the reset, retrograde, and refurbishment of Army 
equipment used in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and has 
provided additional resources in fiscal year 2015 to continue 
improving materiel readiness. However, the committee remains 
concerned about the Army's ability to absorb another round of 
sequestration-driven reductions without negatively affecting 
reset needed for current operations and those likely to be 
undertaken in the future and the growing long-term impacts of 
deferring higher-level maintenance in favor of 10/20 standards 
for units preparing to deploy or already forward deployed.
    The committee also has growing concerns about the potential 
return of disproportionally high readiness shortfalls within 
the National Guard and Reserve Components after briefings and 
hearings reinforced and re-emphasized potential future-year 
issues. While these shortfalls have improved slightly over the 
past 2 years, further years of sequestration could seriously 
challenge the ability of the Reserve Component to remain 
operationally ready. To help address the most critical 
deficiencies in the Active and Reserve Components, H.R. 3979 
would provide resources for additional flying hours, training 
miles, training center rotations, and depot maintenance.
    The committee found that the Air Force continues to 
experience a high operational tempo, which has resulted in 
detrimental effects on equipment, such as engine and structural 
fatigue, deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of 
component failures. The increased tempo also delays required 
routine maintenance. As a result, the committee intends to 
continue its review of the significant shortfalls experienced 
by the Air Force in depot maintenance, particularly in its 
baseline program for Active and Reserve forces which the Air 
Force has made up for through Overseas Contingency Operations 
funding. The committee also has found that challenges are 
expected to persist as operational tempo is anticipated to 
remain at high levels during the drawdown of U.S. forces 
supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, such as 
what occurred with Operation Northern Watch following Operation 
Desert Storm or, even more recently, with the simultaneous 
operations in the State of Libya. This will be particularly 
problematic for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve as 
they also continue to provide support for U.S. domestic 
operations, which was highlighted during the Subcommittee on 
Readiness hearing on the Army and Air Reserve Components.
    Unforeseen commitments unfolding in both Ukraine and Iraq 
have led to increased operational tempo, despite the drawdown 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as demand for naval 
assets continues to increase as a result of the rebalance to 
the Pacific and other regional commands. The committee 
continues to remain concerned about the size of the U.S. Navy 
fleet based on current downward demands, particularly in light 
of years of degraded maintenance on the Navy's non-nuclear 
surface fleet, sustained high operational tempo, and a reset 
cost associated with restoring those assets for which 
maintenance was deferred. In recent months, those trends seem 
to be negatively affecting the subsurface fleet as well.
    The committee remains concerned about the Navy's readiness 
to meet combatant commander demands, particularly in light of 
sequestration, which is expected to degrade the Navy's ability 
to provide surge capacity. The committee requested GAO review 
the Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface 
combatant ship material readiness. Additionally, in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66), the committee included additional funds for ship 
and aircraft depot maintenance to address the backlog of 
requirements and to prevent further degradation to the fleet as 
well as funds to address the combat forces equipment shortfall. 
H.R. 3979 included additional funding to address depot 
maintenance shortfalls.
    The committee also continues to monitor the impacts of 
higher-than-anticipated operational tempo imposed on the Marine 
Corps due to emerging requirements across the world. Like it 
has with the Army, the committee has monitored the Marine 
Corps' reset operations to replace and refurbish equipment and 
vehicles damaged in wartime operations as well as its 
collective training activities and ``new normal'' deployments 
in support of the Department of State.
    While Marine Corps readiness has improved over the past 2 
years, progress remains fragile, and the committee continues to 
be concerned about the impacts of another round of 
sequestration on a Marine Corps that is supporting a growing 
set of enduring missions, such as greater support to U.S. 
embassies, crisis response elements across multiple regions of 
the world, and the resumption of the Unit Deployment Program in 
support of U.S. Pacific Command. To ensure that the Marine 
Corps remains ready for current operations, H.R. 3979 contains 
additional resources for the creation of a Special Purpose 
Marine Air-Ground Task Force in both U.S. Southern Command and 
U.S. Central Command, as well as increased funding for depot 
maintenance, training days, and exercises.
    The committee also continues to monitor the risk the Marine 
Corps has accepted in its heavy reliance on Overseas 
Contingency Operations funding to maintain its required end 
strength supporting geographic combatant command requirements, 
as outlined in the Department of Defense's New Defense 
Strategic Guidance.

                      Depot and Arsenal Capability

    The committee continues to conduct oversight of the health 
of the organic industrial base in a declining workload 
environment, particularly as the end of combat operations in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan draws near. A critical 
aspect of equipment sustainment is the capability provided by 
the Nation's organic arsenals and depots, including air 
logistics centers and shipyards. Realizing the resultant strain 
on the organic industrial base, accompanied by the cuts 
required by sequestration, the committee continues to closely 
monitor the volume, location, and types of maintenance and 
manufacturing performed at the depots and arsenals in the 
United States and in forward-deployed locations. While some 
military departments have completed an organic industrial base 
sustainment plan, the committee remains concerned that the 
Department of Defense continues to lack a comprehensive 
strategy to ensure U.S. military depots and arsenals have the 
workforce, equipment, and facilities for efficient operations 
to meet the Nation's current requirements, as well as those in 
the future. The committee will continue oversight of depot and 
arsenal operations and management, focusing on capital 
investment in facilities and equipment, the implementation 
methodology and use of sustainment concepts such as 
performance-based logistics, the role of public-private 
partnerships, the use of working capital funds for timely 
product improvement, and the services' logistics enterprise 
resource planning systems. Furthermore, the committee will 
continue to examine how recent efficiency initiatives and 
workforce reductions impact depot and arsenal capability, as 
well as programs and initiatives designed to assure 
availability of critical organic manufacturing capabilities.
    The committee has directed that arsenals be utilized for 
defense manufacturing to a greater extent when no commercial 
alternative can be found and provided authority for arsenals to 
submit proposals to solicitations for critical manufacturing 
within their respective areas of expertise as part of H.R. 
3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014. Members and staff have also visited several depot and 
arsenal locations to provide oversight and more fully assess 
current operational impacts of sequestration.

                           Civilian Personnel

    The Department of Defense has long relied on the Federal 
civilian workforce to support its missions around the world, 
often requiring civilians to serve in active combat zones, and 
it is clear that the Department's civilian workforce plays a 
critical role in the readiness of U.S. military forces. The 
committee included provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and 
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, to 
extend authorities for premium pay and allowances, benefits and 
gratuities for deployed civilians. The committee has also 
continued to closely monitor the implementation of each 
military department's efficiencies initiatives, including the 
Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, which 
focuses on the civilian workforce. These initiatives included a 
civilian hiring freeze for all the military departments as well 
as significant personnel restrictions which started in 2010 and 
remain in effect.
    The committee focused significant oversight efforts on the 
decision announced by the Secretary of Defense on May 14, 2013, 
to impose an 11-day furlough (later decreased to 6 days) on the 
civilian workforce. The committee remains concerned about the 
effects of the furlough and Government shutdown on the morale 
of the force which has already suffered from the civilian 
hiring freeze, layoffs of temporary workers, cuts in facilities 
maintenance and other disruptive factors on the working 
environment. Additionally, the committee remains concerned 
about the negative effect furloughs of working capital fund 
employees have on military readiness. The furlough of working 
capital fund employees when monies and workload are available 
only delays delivery times and raises rates, imposes 
unnecessary costs to taxpayers and reducing military readiness.

                         Energy and Environment


Energy Security

    The committee conducted vigorous oversight of the 
Department of Defense's energy activities and closely examined 
the strategies and policies for both installation energy and 
operational energy to reduce consumption and dependence on 
foreign oil while promoting good stewardship of taxpayer money 
with demonstrated returns on investment. The committee believes 
that Department of Defense installations provide significant 
opportunity for reducing energy demand through appropriate use 
of renewable energy technologies combined with energy security. 
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the 
final Quadrennial Defense Review assessment include details 
regarding the importance of, and funding necessary to achieve, 
energy security. The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) included several 
provisions regarding energy policy, to include a focus on 
alternative fuel and installation energy specifically. H.R. 
3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would prohibit 
the use of Department of Defense funds for large-scale 
purchases of drop-in fuels unless it is cost competitive, and 
it also requires the Department to provide a business case 
analysis to Congress before constructing a biofuel refinery. 
Additionally, the report directs the Comptroller General to 
review the Department's Annual Energy Management report, and 
directs the Secretary of Defense to report on how the 
Department of Defense is considering the operational impact of 
energy logistics.
    As directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee received briefings from the Department 
of Defense regarding power and energy research at University 
Affiliated Research Centers, alternative power applications on 
military installations, direct solar and other energy efficient 
technologies on military installations, decentralized steam 
generation, and energy collaboration and technology transition. 
As directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) 
accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee received 
briefings from the Department of Defense regarding the 
infrastructure and operational requirements associated with the 
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility.

Environment

    The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues 
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military 
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to 
include the military services' environmental restoration 
program and adherence to Federal, state, and local cleanup, 
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. There have 
been several areas of emerging concern to include protecting 
DOD training, testing, and operations from encroachment, the 
ability for DOD to operate in the Arctic, and persisting 
concerns regarding the use of burn pits in contingency 
environments.
    H.R. 1960, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, as passed by the House, addressed modifications to 
the Sikes Act to include a 5-year reauthorization and 
permitting the ability to use funds to match for cost-sharing 
requirements. The committee also continued its oversight and 
provided clarification regarding the prohibition of burn pits. 
Additionally, in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee continues its oversight regarding the 
Department of Defense's ability to operate in the Arctic by 
directing a roadmap for 2020-2030, as well as concerns 
regarding the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California, and 
finally directs an audit of the impacts of encroachment on 
national security and the Department of Defense's ability to 
train and operate on its defense installations.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
includes several provisions, to include a Department of Defense 
report regarding compliance with applicable laws and DOD 
Instructions regarding the disposal of covered waste in burn 
pits in addition to a Comptroller General review. Additionally, 
there is a Sikes Act modification to permit lump-sum payments, 
as well as a provision that permits DOD to clean up the former 
naval bombardment area on the Island of Culebra, Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico.
    As directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, the committee received a briefing from the 
Department of Defense regarding environmental exposures and the 
Department of Defense's processes to minimize exposure and seek 
technological solutions. As directed by the committee report 
(H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the 
committee received a briefing from the Department of Defense 
regarding invasive species management and coconut rhinoceros 
beetles.

                MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE


                                 Basing

    The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant 
change in force structure both in the United States and 
overseas as a result of the drawdown of military forces from 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Global Defense Posture 
Review, and budgetary pressures being placed on the Department 
of Defense. These rebasing movements affect not only U.S. 
global presence, but they may also have significant 
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military 
construction, and quality of life for military members and 
their families.
    The committee has been specifically interested in ensuring 
the Department of Defense has the requisite tools and 
capabilities to support the Pacific rebalance effort. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66), included a legislative section that restricted 
certain construction funds to support the realignment of 
military forces from Okinawa to Guam or Hawaii until specific 
conditions are completed including: submission of a report 
required by section 1068(c) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239); 
master plans for the Marine Corps distributed laydown on Guam 
and Hawaii; and, a coordinated Federal agencies plan to provide 
public infrastructure on Guam. The Act included several 
exceptions to the restrictions to allow the expenditure of 
funds to support a certain military construction project, funds 
to support planning and design activities on Guam, and funds to 
continue environmental analyses associated with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 support the realignment of 
Marine Corps assets to Guam.
    Public Law 113-66 Act also included specific authority to 
initiate certain Air Force military construction projects that 
would harden certain hangars and fuel points to ensure the 
survivability of these critical nodes. H.R. 3979, the Carl 
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included restrictions 
that would amend section 2822 of the Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 
Law 113-66) and would remove certain restrictions limiting the 
movement of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan. H.R. 3979 
would specifically eliminate the prohibition on construction 
activities and replace it with an overall cost cap on such 
construction, reflecting the Department's July 2014 submitted 
Master Plan for Guam. H.R. 3979 would continue the restrictions 
on the development of public infrastructure on Guam unless a 
grant, transfer, cooperative agreement, or supplemental funding 
for the development of public infrastructure is specifically 
authorized by law and would be used to carry out a project 
included in the report of the Economic Adjustment Committee 
required by section 2831(d) of Public Law 113-66.
    The committee also assessed the Department of Defense's 
request for two additional rounds of Base Realignment and 
Closure (BRAC). After contemplating information provided by the 
Department of Defense that supports two additional rounds of 
BRAC, Public Law 113-66 included language that stated nothing 
in the Act shall be construed to authorize a future BRAC round. 
For fiscal year 2015, H.R. 3979 retained this BRAC restriction 
and the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979 
noted that the Department of Defense's and military 
departments' current estimates of excess infrastructure 
capacity associated with military installations are based on 
outdated data from the analysis done in support of the 2005 
BRAC round. Due to the force structure changes and 
infrastructure investments and management strategies that have 
occurred since the 2005 BRAC round, the committee believes that 
the Department's excess infrastructure capacity assessments 
should be based on current infrastructure data and informed by 
current force structure projections. As a result, the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2015 was reduced for 
Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance by $8.0 million, which 
represented the funding requested by the Department to develop 
recommendations and manage a new BRAC round.
    The committee is concerned about the use of host-nation 
funding sources on military construction projects and potential 
concerns to this program that have occurred over the past 
several years. The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) included a requirement to 
obtain a specific congressional authorization to use host-
nation funding in support of a project in excess of the 
military construction authority provided in section 2805 of 
title 10, United States Code. For fiscal year 2015, H.R. 3979 
included language that would clarify the requirement of section 
2687a of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 
2807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014 (Public Law 113-66), that military construction projects 
built with in-kind payments or in-kind contributions required 
by bilateral agreements be specifically authorized by law. This 
provision also included an enactment date effective the later 
of September 30, 2016, or the date of enactment of an Act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2017. The provision also exempted military construction 
projects funded with payments-in-kind or in-kind contributions 
that were the subject of negotiation between the U.S. and a 
host country as of the date of enactment of this Act. Until the 
enactment date, H.R. 3979 requires notification to the 
congressional defense committees at least 30 days prior to 
initiating any military construction project built for 
Department of Defense personnel outside the U.S. using 
payments-in-kind or in-kind contributions and make other 
conforming changes.

                   Military Construction Programming

    With regard to construction programming, the committee 
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited 
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to 
address emerging construction requirements. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) contained a provision that authorized the use of operations 
and maintenance funds for contingency construction. H.R. 3979, 
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would extend this 
authorization to the combatant commanders for another year.
    Further, the committee increased the Department of 
Defense's flexibility with regard to the authority to carry out 
unspecified minor military construction. H.R. 3979 modified 
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, by increasing the 
threshold associated with operation and maintenance funding for 
minor military construction purposes from $750,000 to $1.0 
million. H.R. 3979 also unified the threshold for application 
of unspecified minor construction from $2.0 million to $3.0 
million and increased the maximum amount of unspecified minor 
military construction funding that can be used to correct 
facility deficiencies that threaten the life, safety, or health 
of personnel from $3.0 million to $4.0 million.
    The committee continues to support initiatives to 
streamline the existing military construction programming 
authorities, and Public Law 113-66 included language that 
expanded the authority for military laboratories to implement 
construction projects and required local installation security 
assessments to determine the appropriate level of anti-
terrorism/force protection criteria to insert in future 
construction projects. This Act also deleted certain outdated 
reporting requirements previously provided to Congress. H.R. 
3979 also included language to modify section 2802 of title 10, 
United States Code, to require that the Secretary concerned 
notify the congressional defense committees at least 15 days 
prior to the initiation of any construction, land acquisition, 
or defense-access road project by a military department, 
defense agency, or Department of Defense Field Activity on a 
military installation that will be carried out pursuant to a 
provision of law other than a Military Construction 
Authorization Act.

          Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal

    The real property management process requires extensive 
oversight to maintain more than $850.3 billion in 
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $37.0 billion, or 
nearly 7.5 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. To 
ensure proper oversight of this real property inventory, in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee 
expressed concern about the extensive use of existing leasing 
authorities and requested the Comptroller General assess the 
magnitude of Department of Defense leasing efforts. The 
committee report also included a requirement for the 
Comptroller General to submit a report on the Department of 
Defense's efforts to improve the accuracy of its real property 
inventory database and the impact on consolidations activities 
to this database. Additionally, the Joint Explanatory Statement 
accompanying the H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, required a report to assess the 
current use utilization rates of the Department of Defense real 
property inventory.
    With regard to the execution of previous BRAC rounds, the 
committee remained concerned that the efficiencies associated 
with the process are offset with the inability to quickly 
dispose of excess property and the potential lack of overall 
savings to the federal government. Therefore, the Joint 
Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would direct the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 1, 2015, as to the overall effectiveness of the property 
disposal process from each prior BRAC round. In addition, the 
committee is concerned that previous recommendations were not 
effectively implemented, thus obviating certain cost saving 
opportunities, and directed the Comptroller General to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees on the BRAC 2005 
recommendations to merge or consolidate functions to become 
more joint.
    The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense 
facility sustainment accounts and found that significant 
shortfalls needed to be addressed to manage basic services. The 
committee proposed increased funding to these accounts in both 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and 
H.R. 3979 to address shortfalls in the facility sustainment 
accounts to partially support systemic facility sustainment 
deficits.

                 Military Infrastructure Privatization

    The Department of Defense has made extensive use of 
privatization of military assets including family housing, 
bachelor quarters, and utility-related infrastructure. The 
Department has leveraged available capital in Department of 
Defense infrastructure and entered into long-term contracts 
with private property managers. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) 
provided additional oversight and accountability in the pursuit 
of military family housing privatization projects to include an 
assessment of litigation costs that are being pursued by the 
privatization partners.

             TOTAL FORCE, PERSONNEL, AND HEALTH CARE ISSUES


 Manpower Sufficient in Quantity and Quality to Meet Global Commitments

    The committee continued to provide oversight of military 
manpower levels and force structure during the first session of 
the 113th Congress. The committee remains concerned with the 
impact sequestration will have on the ability of the services 
to maintain manpower levels sufficient to meet the National 
Military Strategy.
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on 
February 27, 2013, to receive testimony from the Acting Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the 
service personnel chiefs regarding the impact of sequestration, 
the continuing resolution and the Budget Control Act of 2011 
(Public Law 112-25) on end strength draw-down plans. At the 
time of the hearing, there was much uncertainty over the future 
of sequestration and the committee had not yet received the 
President's budget request.
    The committee supported the end strengths of the military 
services as requested in the President's budget in H.R. 1960, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
passed by the House on June 14, 2013. Following House passage 
of H.R. 1960, the Secretary of Defense's Strategic Choices and 
Management Review (SCMR) was released, which recommended 
further adjustments to the services' force structure and end 
strength plans. These adjustments were primarily based on 
projected budgetary concerns, instead of strategic analysis of 
national security mission requirements. The SCMR recommended 
accelerating the reductions for the Army and Marine Corps to 
the pre-sequester end strength targets of 490,000 for the Army 
and 182,100 for the Marine Corps by the end of fiscal year 
2015, 2 years before originally anticipated. Based on these 
changes, as part of H.R. 3304, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee supported 
the Army and Marine Corps adjusted reductions by lowering the 
minimum end strength levels for fiscal year 2014, as well as 
adjusted the limitations on annual reductions for the Army and 
Marine Corps imposed in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
    The new, most optimistic end-state based on the SCMR 
recommendations would shrink the Army to 420,000 from 450,000; 
and the Marine Corps to between 170,000 and 175,000. The 
committee remains concerned that unfettered reductions in end 
strength will have a detrimental impact on force structure and 
ultimately, operational mission capability and capacity among 
the services, and harm the morale of the force.
    In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee 
remained concerned with the continued reduction of military 
manpower and force structure. The committee supported the end 
strengths of the services requested in the President's budget, 
in H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, but limited 
the reductions by placing a floor on the military services end 
strength since there remains concern with the future projected 
manning levels based on testimony from the service chiefs. They 
testified that sequestration forced reductions of end strength 
will drive readiness of the force down decreasing the ability 
to accomplish assigned missions putting our Nation's defense at 
high risk.
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on 
January 16, 2014, to receive testimony on future recruiting 
challenges in the fiscally constrained environment. The 
subcommittee also held a hearing on March 25, 2014, to receive 
testimony on the Military Personnel Overview from Department of 
Defense and service personnel chiefs about military personnel 
issues addressed in the President's budget submission for 
fiscal year 2015. The subcommittee also held a hearing 
September 17, 2014, to receive a briefing from GAO on their 
report on the cost of General and Flag Officers.

                           Military Benefits

    The committee continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the first and second session of the 113th 
Congress to ensure an adequate quality of life for service 
members and their families and to ensure that pay and benefits 
meet the needs of the wartime military and keep pace with 
private sector standards. The committee's active oversight of 
these issues led the committee as part of H.R. 1960, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
passed by the House on June 7, 2013, and again as part of H.R. 
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2015 as passed by the House on May 22, 2014, to recommend no 
change to current law, which would allow a 1.8 percent raise in 
basic pay during fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 based on 
section 1009 of title 37, United States Code. It is the intent 
of the underlying law to ensure military pay raises match the 
rate of compensation increases in the private sector as 
measured by the Employment Cost Index. Following passage of 
H.R. 1960, the President used his authority and notified 
Congress that he was setting the 2014 military basic pay raise 
at 1.0 percent, well below the Employment Cost Index. Again, 
following the passage of H.R. 4435 the President used his 
authority and notified Congress that he was setting the 2015 
military basic pay raise at 1.0 percent, again, well below the 
Employment Cost Index. Consistent with the position of the 
House, H.R. 3304 and H.R. 4435 neither affirms nor rejects the 
President's decision. However, in the committee report (H. 
Rept. 113-103) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and the committee report (H. Rept. 
113-446) accompanying Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee 
expressed concern that future pay raise proposals that are 
below the Employment Cost Index may have long term adverse 
consequences on the recruiting and retention of a high-quality 
All-Volunteer Force.
    The committee extended the authorities to pay bonuses and 
special pays during fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 and 
monitored the value of those bonuses and special pays to ensure 
they were sufficient to achieve the recruiting and retention 
objectives for which they were developed. The committee also 
included legislation that reforms and prevents a retired pay 
inversion for members whose retired pay is computed under the 
high-three average. Further, the committee included legislation 
that would require the Department of Defense to use the 
services of an independent organization experienced in grocery 
retail analysis to assess any proposed changes to the defense 
commissary system. The committee continues to closely monitor 
the progress of the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission, authorized in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as 
they continue their work to develop recommendations for the 
modernization of the military compensation and retirement 
system. On September 12, 2013, pursuant to section 674(c) of 
Public Law 112-239, the President transmitted his principles 
for modernizing the military compensation and retirement 
systems.
    On April 8, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
met to receive testimony on the Beneficiary and Advocacy 
Overview of the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget. On 
September 17, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a briefing 
from Government Accountability Office on their report on the 
cost of General and Flag Officers.

                       Military Family Readiness

    The United States remains a Nation at war. Consequently, 
the families of the members of the Armed Forces continue to 
experience the strains associated with repeated deployments. In 
this regard, the committee focused on the needs of military 
families to identify the programs and policies that can be 
developed or enhanced to improve their lives.
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, and the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-103) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 continued the effort to 
provide family programs as the Department of Defense and the 
military services conducted reviews of existing family programs 
in light of end strength reductions and shrinking resources. 
Recognizing the unique challenges faced by families of service 
members assigned to special operations forces, H.R. 1960, as 
passed by the House, authorized the Commander, U.S. Special 
Operations Command to conduct pilot programs to assess the 
benefits of U.S. Special Operations Command providing family 
support activities in addition family support programs provided 
by the military services.
    In addition, to assist in the committee's oversight efforts 
regarding stress on military families related to multiple 
deployments, the committee included the requirement for the 
Secretary of Defense to review the ability of the military 
services to collect and analyze suicide among family members 
and report on the feasibility of collecting and retaining such 
data.
    Continuing the committee's efforts towards addressing 
deployment related stress on the family, H.R. 3979, the Carl 
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would direct 
requirements for the Secretary of Defense to develop a standard 
method for collecting, reporting and assessing any suicide or 
attempted suicide of members of the Armed Forces, including 
Reserve Components, and any death reported as a suicide of a 
dependent of a member of the Armed Forces.
    To further support service members who are deployed, H.R. 
3979 includes an amendment to the Servicemembers Civil Relief 
Act (50 U.S.C.) that would require temporary custody orders 
rendered by a court based solely on the deployment of the 
parent to last only for the period justified by the deployment.

         Mental Health Services for Members of the Armed Forces

    The committee continued to focus on the adequacy and 
effectiveness of mental health services provided to members of 
the Armed Forces and their families. Of particular concern are 
the mental health resources for members of the military 
services especially while they are deployed. H.R. 1960, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
passed by the House, addressed this concern by including a 
provision that requires person-to-person mental health exams 
every 180 days while a service member is deployed. In addition, 
the House passed bill provided for the continuity of mental 
health care for services members leaving military service by 
including a provision that extends the Transitional Assistance 
Management Program (TAMP) an additional 180 days for behavioral 
heath care using telemedicine
    Particular attention was given to the suicide prevention 
efforts undertaken by each military service and the development 
of the comprehensive Department of Defense policy on prevention 
of suicide among members of the Armed Forces. In this regard, 
the committee also focused on mental health issues that may 
ultimately result in suicide, such as the incidence of alcohol 
abuse among service members and their families and treatment 
for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain 
injury (TBI). H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, included the 
recommendation that the Department of Defense consider a 
systems medicine approach to improve the research and 
development of PTSD and TBI.
    On March 21, 2013, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
conducted a hearing to receive testimony from the military 
services on the current status of suicide prevention programs 
in the military. The hearing provided Members with the 
opportunity to examine the implementation of suicide prevention 
programs in each of the military services. On April 10, 2013, 
the subcommittee conducted a hearing to receive testimony from 
the Department of Defense DOD) and the military services on how 
DOD funded research on mental health related matters, 
specifically PTSD and TBI, has improved the treatment of mental 
health conditions for members of the military and their family 
members. On September 17, 2013, the subcommittee received a 
briefing from the Defense Center of Excellence on Psychological 
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. On November 15, 2013, the 
subcommittee received a briefing on the research findings 
conducted under the Mindfulness-Based Mind Fitness Training 
Pilot Research in cooperation with the Army and Marine Corps.
    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee continued oversight on mental health support for 
members of the Armed Forces and their families. To that end, 
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
direct requirements for the Secretary of Defense to provide a 
face-to-face mental health assessment to all members of the 
Armed Forces, including the Selected Reserve, once each 
calendar year. In addition, H.R. 3979 requires a mental health 
assessment once every 180 days while a service member is 
deployed. H.R. 3979 also requires the Secretary evaluate 
specific tools, processes and best practices to improve the 
identification and treatment of mental health conditions and 
traumatic brain injury among members of the Armed Forces.

                      Military Health Care System

    The committee remained committed to a robust military 
health system which provides quality health care for service 
members, retirees, and their families. As such, the committee 
continued to exercise vigorous oversight on the military health 
system. Committee oversight activities included staff visits to 
several military medical facilities, including medical 
facilities that are currently under construction. The committee 
continued to address the cost of providing health care to 
military beneficiaries as well as the out-of-pocket cost of 
health care for beneficiaries. Additionally, the committee 
focused on the reforms to the military health system through 
briefings by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) on the congressional mandated 
reports on the military health system governance reform 
implementation plan.
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, and the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 included several 
legislative provisions and reporting requirements on the 
military health system. Among others, these include provisions 
relating to the shortcomings of the March 2013 Department of 
Defense report on the Military Health System (MHS) governance 
reform, a GAO review of consolidated medical training at the 
Medical Education Training Campus, a one-time opt-in for 
TRICARE prime for beneficiaries who live in certain zip codes 
and requirements for the DOD-VA integrated electronic health 
record.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, directed the Secretary of Defense to complete 
implementation of the Healthcare Artifact and Image Management 
Solution (HAIMS) within 180 days following enactment of the 
Act.
    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee continued to exercise the oversight plan through 
visits to medical facilities both overseas and in the United 
States. The committee staff continued aggressive oversight on 
the progress toward implementing the DOD-VA integrated 
electronic health record though monthly meetings with the 
Program Executive Officer. The committee remains concerned with 
the depth of analysis undertaken by the Department of Defense 
to inform major decisions affecting the structure of the 
military health system and ultimately the availability of and 
access to military health care. As such, H.R. 3979, the Carl 
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would prohibit the 
Secretary of Defense from restructuring a military medical 
treatment facility until the Comptroller General reviews a 
report submitted to the Congressional defense committees, by 
the Secretary, that includes detailed information on the 
medical treatment facilities included in the Military Health 
System Modernization Study.
    On February 26, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel met to receive testimony on the defense health 
agency. On March 4, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on the Progress in Modernizing DOD Electronic Health 
Records. On April 3, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on Progress in Modernizing DOD Electronic Health 
Records.

  Morale, Welfare and Recreation Programs and Military Resale Programs

    Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and military resale 
programs (commonly known as commissary and exchange stores) are 
a valuable benefit to the All-Volunteer force. Critics have 
continued to target these programs as being unnecessary and 
wasteful, and have proposed to reduce or eliminate appropriated 
funding. The committee rejects such assertions and believes 
cost efficient sustainment of MWR and military resale programs 
(commissaries and exchanges) is required to protect quality of 
life for military families and their communities and help 
ensure the readiness of the force. In its oversight efforts, 
the committee held several meetings with the Department of 
Defense to discuss initiatives to gain efficiencies in the 
management and delivery of MWR programs at every level, to 
include installation level. The Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel met in an open hearing on November 20, 2013, titled 
``Military Resale Programs Overview'' in order to discuss how 
the military resale community will continue to provide benefits 
to service members, families and retirees in a fiscally 
constrained environment.
    The committee continued to provide oversight of these 
vitally important programs in the second session of the 113th 
Congress. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' 
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
included a provision that would direct a review of commissary 
management, food and pricing operations to help answer the 
committee's concern about arbitrary budgetary decisions and 
future sustainability of the commissary system.

                 Prisoner of War and Missing in Action

    Over the past several years, the committee has maintained 
active oversight of the Department of Defense's Prisoner of 
War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) activities, as the committee of 
jurisdiction. That oversight led to the requirement that the 
Department of Defense reform the POW/MIA accounting effort and 
achieve significantly higher levels of identification by 2015. 
The committee continued its oversight role by receiving updates 
from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/Missing 
Personnel Affairs and the Commander of Joint POW/MIA Accounting 
Command (JPAC) on their plans to achieve the legislative 
mandate to increase the number of identifications to a rate of 
200 per year by 2015. The committee also received the 
Comptroller General of the United States review as directed by 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to conduct a 
review of the Secretary of Defense's efforts to significantly 
increase the capability and capacity of the Department of 
Defense to account for missing persons in accordance with 
section 1509 of title 10, United States.
    Based on the Comptroller General's review and media reports 
on an internal study completed by JPAC, the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel held a hearing on August 1, 2013, to discuss 
the results of both studies and the challenges of the POW/MIA 
accounting community to increase identifications. The committee 
is pleased the Secretary of Defense concurred with the 
Comptroller General's recommendations but remains concerned 
with the Secretary's efforts to increase the effectiveness, 
integration, capability, and capacity to account for missing 
persons. The committee eagerly awaits the Director of the Cost, 
Assessment and Program and Evaluation (CAPE) review and 
recommendation on how the Department should proceed, as well as 
the results of the Department of Defense Inspector General's 
investigation into allegations of fraud, waste and abuse at 
JPAC in order to determine if further legislation is required. 
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel is expected to continue 
its active oversight of POW/MIA issues.
    In March 2014, the Secretary of Defense made the decision 
to consolidate the POW/MIA accounting community into a single 
defense agency in order to create a single chain of command and 
increase efficiency. This decision was based on the GAO review 
and CAPE's recommendations. On July 15, 2014, the Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel met to receive testimony from the 
Department of Defense on their review of the Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action (POW/MIA) community and the restructuring of 
these agencies as directed by the Secretary of Defense. As a 
result, H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
direct modifications to the requirements for accounting for 
members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 
employees listed as missing by establishing a single defense 
agency for POW/MIA affairs and provide additional authorities 
to enhance recovery efforts and provide family members 
information.

                     Sexual Assault in the Military

    The committee continued to hold the Department of Defense 
and the military services accountable to address sexual 
assaults in the military and ensure victims are provided the 
appropriate care and support. As a result of this aggressive 
oversight, H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act, 
as passed by the House, contained substantial, bipartisan 
reforms, especially to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
(UCMJ). Reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice would:
          (1) Strip commanders of their authority to dismiss a 
        finding by a court martial, a power they have held 
        since the earliest days of our military;
          (2) Prohibit commanders from overturning or reducing 
        guilty findings to guilty of a lesser offense;
          (3) Limit commander's authority to modify adjudged 
        sentences;
          (4) Establish minimum sentencing guidelines where 
        service members are found guilty of sexual assault 
        related offenses. Currently, such guidelines only exist 
        in the military for the crimes of murder and espionage.
          (5) Enable the victim of a crime to provide the 
        convening authority materials for the convening 
        authority's post-trial for consideration;
          (6) Set guidelines for defense council interviews of 
        the victim; and,
          (7) Require the provision of victims' counsels, 
        qualified and specially trained lawyers in each of the 
        services, to be made available to provide legal 
        assistance to the victims of sex-related offenses;
          (8) Articulate the rights of a crime victim; and
          (9) Require both the Secretary of Defense and the 
        independent panel established in the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to assess the 
        current role and authorities of commanders in the 
        administration of military justice and the 
        investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of 
        offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, included other reforms 
to complement the reforms made to the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice. Those additional reforms would:
          (1) Allow victims of sexual assault to apply for a 
        permanent change of station or unit transfer, while 
        authorizing the Secretary of Defense to inform 
        commanders of their authority to remove or temporarily 
        reassign service members who are the alleged 
        perpetrators of sexual assault;
          (2) Add rape, sexual assault, or other sexual 
        misconduct to the protected; communications of service 
        members with a Member of Congress or an Inspector 
        General;
          (3) Increase commander accountability, and help 
        establish a military culture intolerant of sexual 
        assaults through improved security as well as health 
        and welfare inspections;
          (4) Mandate the processing for administrative 
        separation of any service member guilty of an 
        inappropriate and prohibited relationship, 
        communication, conduct, or contact, including when such 
        an action is consensual, with a prospective member of 
        the Armed Forces or a member undergoing entry-level 
        processing or training; and
          (5) Direct the Government Accountability Office to 
        review implementation of the Air Force corrective 
        actions following the sexual misconduct at Lackland Air 
        Force Base.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, further strengthens the reforms. These 
reforms would:
          (1) Require the completion of a preliminary hearing, 
        (Article 32, UCMJ) prior to referral to a general 
        court-martial for trial of any charge or specification;
          (2) Change Article 32, UCMJ proceedings to a 
        preliminary hearing to determine probable cause; and
          (3) Require decisions by a convening authority not to 
        refer charges of sex-related offenses to trial by 
        court-martial in cases where the staff judge advocate 
        recommends that the charges be referred to be reviewed 
        by the secretary of the military service.
    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee continued to conduct aggressive oversight on sexual 
assault among members of the military and to work with the 
Department of Defense and the military services to address 
accountability, prosecution of offenders and victim support. 
Committee oversight included a series of briefings on key issue 
areas, including: on March 6, 2014, the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel met to receive a briefing on Sexual Assault 
Prosecution and Conviction Rates; o on June 25, 2014, the 
subcommittee met to receive a briefing on Status of the 
Implementation of the Sexual Assault Provisions in the National 
Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2012, 2013 and 2014 
and the Secretary of Defense Initiatives Announced in August 
201; and, on July 31, 2014 the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on the Recommendations from the Response Systems to 
Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel.
    In addition, further reforms were included in H.R. 3979, 
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, to include:
          (1) Changes to when and under which circumstances 
        depositions may be ordered under the Uniformed Code of 
        Military Justice;
          (2) Expanding access to Special Victims Counsel to 
        members of the reserve components if an alleged sex-
        related offense occurred while the member was serving 
        on active duty, full-time National Guard duty or 
        inactive duty training, or if the circumstances of the 
        sex-related offense has a nexus to the military service 
        of the victim;
          (3) Requiring that a victim be consulted regarding 
        their preference whether the offense should be 
        prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court with 
        jurisdiction over the offense and that the convening 
        authority consider the victim's preference when making 
        a determination whether to refer the charge for the 
        offense to a court-martial for trial;
          (4) Eliminating ``good soldier defense'' for the 
        purpose of showing the probability of innocence for 
        sex-related offenses;
          (5) Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of 
        Evidence to include communication between a 
        psychotherapist and patient under privileged 
        communications; and
          (6) Expanded the specified personnel who may be 
        assigned to duty as a Sexual assault Forensic Examiner 
        to include physicians, nurse practitioners, nurse 
        midwives, physician's assistants and registered nurses.

                          Wounded Warrior Care

    The committee devoted substantial attention on the adequacy 
of the Department of Defense (DOD) policies and programs for 
wounded and disabled service members and their families. In 
this regard, the committee oversight activities included 
several staff visits to the military service's units 
responsible for the care, recovery and transition of wounded, 
ill and injured service members. Committee staff also visited 
several defense centers of excellence to assess the progress 
towards providing wounded, ill and injured service members new 
and innovative treatment and technology to improve recovery and 
quality of life.
    The committee continued to provide oversight and expressed 
concern about the backlog of cases in the Integrated Disability 
Evaluation System. The committee monitored, through quarterly 
briefings with DOD and the military services, progress toward 
reducing the time a service member remains in the Integrated 
Disability Evaluation System and the backlog of cases awaiting 
completion. Committee staff visited the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Disability Rating Activity Site (DRAS) to assess the 
progress in reducing the number of backlogged disability claims 
submitted by service members.
    On September 17, 2013, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel received a briefing from the DOD-VA Centers of 
Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, 
Hearing and Vision on research regarding visual dysfunction 
related to traumatic brain injury and implementation of the 
Comptroller General's recommendations to prevent hearing loss. 
On July 17, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a briefing on 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs 
Formularies and Medication Management for Transitioning Service 
Members.

                  MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES


                                Overview

    During the 113th Congress, particular attention was given 
by the committee to the examination of military equipment 
modernization strategies with respect to military capability. 
The committee conducted oversight of the full range of 
modernization and investment issues facing the Department of 
Defense, to include the impacts of budget uncertainty and 
sequestration. How Congress chooses to fund Department of 
Defense future acquisition programs will dramatically affect 
the size, health, age, and supporting industrial base of the 
air, sea, and land force structure available to U.S. forces in 
support of the National Military Strategy and current strategic 
defense planning guidance, as well as the Nation's vital 
interests. The committee remained concerned by continued cost 
growth and schedule delays among all categories of acquisition 
programs. The committee continued to assess the need for 
legislative action by examining causes of these problems 
including: late determination of requirements, requirements 
growth, failure to properly control requirements changes; 
inadequate analyses of alternatives, concurrency in test and 
evaluation, military services proceeding prematurely with 
development of immature technology; poor cost estimating; 
inadequate funding profiles; over-estimation of potential 
production rates; and program instability.
    In particular, the committee examined whether the military 
services have the appropriate authorities, capabilities, and 
force structure to defend against any potential challenges 
posed by the advanced anti-access capabilities of countries 
such as the People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic 
of Iran, consistent with the report of the 2010 Department of 
Defense Quadrennial Defense Review which found that, ``Anti-
access strategies seek to deny outside countries the ability to 
project power into a region, thereby allowing aggression or 
other destabilizing actions to be conducted by the anti-access 
power. Without dominant capabilities to project power, the 
integrity of U.S. alliances and security partnerships could be 
called into question, reducing U.S. security and influence and 
increasing the possibility of conflict.''

          Army and Marine Corps Armored Vehicle Modernization

    The committee conducted rigorous oversight of the Army and 
Marine Corps' evolving plans to modernize their entire fleets 
of armored combat vehicles. In particular, the committee 
focused on ensuring that the existing fleet of armored vehicles 
is properly upgraded and reset after very heavy use in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and 
that the Army continues to field vehicles with effective 
survivability requirements that mitigate the evolving anti-
vehicle threat posed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), as 
well as protect against advances in anti-tank guided missiles. 
In addition to ensuring modernization of existing armored 
vehicles such as the M1 Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting 
Vehicle, and Stryker Combat Vehicle, the committee also 
continued aggressive efforts to oversee and shape the evolving 
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, as well as the follow-on 
effort to the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) 
program, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program, through 
formal activities to include hearings, briefings, official 
correspondence and travel, as well as senior level meetings 
with Army and Marine Corps officials.
    The committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces have focused on understanding the basis of 
these requirements for the GCV and ACV as they pertain to their 
respective Analysis of Alternatives, containing program costs, 
ensuring realistic operational requirements are validated, as 
well as ensuring appropriate and thorough testing is complete 
for both systems before moving forward in development and 
procurement. The committee has also worked closely with the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) to conduct rigorous oversight and 
evaluation of major armored vehicle programs as necessary. 
These oversight efforts also included official hearings, site 
visits, close coordination with Army and Marine Corps 
leadership as well as the office of the Director, Operational 
Test and Evaluation, and careful scrutinization of 
reprogramming requests. The committee remained concerned about 
the Army's proposal to let the Armored Brigade Combat Team 
(ABCT) vehicle production lines go ``cold'' for 3-to-4 years 
and the associated impact this decision would have on the 
industrial base at both the prime contractor and vendor level.
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, authorized full 
funding for the GCV program. The bill would also restrict the 
Army from obligating technology development funds until the 
Secretary of the Army submits a report to the defense 
committees that provides Congress with more detailed 
information regarding the current program requirements and 
acquisition strategy. H.R. 1960 also mandates an annual 
reporting requirement on the ACV program by the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO). Finally, H.R. 1960, as passed by 
the House, authorized $243.0 million in additional funding to 
allow for the continued sustainment of the Army's ABCT vehicle 
production base by maintaining at least minimum sustained 
production for Abrams tank upgrades and heavy improved recovery 
vehicles. H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, directs an additional $165.0 million for ABCT 
industrial base sustainment, and supported the provisions 
contained in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, with minor 
technical and clarifying amendments.
    As part of the legislative process for the development of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
the committee continued to express concerns about the ABCT 
industrial base, as well as future development efforts for next 
generation combat vehicles such as the Marine Corps' ACV 1.1 
program, and the Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) 
program, respectively. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015, authorized an additional $309.0 million for the 
continued sustainment of the ABCT industrial base. In addition, 
H.R. 3979 would limit the obligation or expenditure of funds to 
not more than 80 percent for the Army's AMPV program until the 
Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional 
defense committees on the Army's plan to eventually replace all 
M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers (APC) within Echelons-Above-
Brigade (EAB) formations. The Army's current AMPV plan 
addresses a critical shortfall within Echelons-Below-Brigade 
(EBB) formations, but not survivability shortfalls within EAB 
formations.

            Army and Marine Corps Tactical Wheeled Vehicles

    The committee remained concerned over the challenges facing 
the Army and Marine Corps in managing the magnitude of their 
tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleet, to include the associated 
industrial bases at all levels, during this economic downturn 
and fiscally constrained environment. During the 113th 
Congress, the committee, in particular the Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces, through formal hearings, 
briefings, and active engagement with senior Department of 
Defense officials, as well as auditors from the Government 
Accountability Office continued to provide oversight on DOD's 
TWV fleets. The committee focused oversight efforts on the Army 
and Marine Corps' TWV modernization strategies for their 
families of light, medium, and heavy TWVs, the family of mine 
resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles, line haul tractor 
trailers, and construction equipment. In particular, the 
committee focused on ensuring that the existing fleet of TWVs 
and MRAPs are properly modernized and reset after very heavy 
operational use in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. The committee also ensured the 
National Guard and Reserve Component received modernized TWVs 
to address current modernization shortfalls.
    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee expressed significant concerns about the long-term 
viability of the TWV industrial base, as a result of severe 
impacts of sequestration on the TWV industrial base, 
specifically the medium and heavy TWV base. The committee 
recommended several TWV industrial base risk mitigation efforts 
and noted the Department's current strategy of stopping and 
restarting mature production lines is inefficient and 
problematic for the TWV industrial base. The committee believes 
that smooth and predictable funding levels, and not abrupt and 
large swings in funding and production requirements, would 
result in the best outcome for taxpayers, the industrial base, 
the military services, and, ultimately, the warfighter. As 
such, H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
authorized an additional $100.0 million for medium and heavy 
TWVs as part of a comprehensive industrial base risk mitigation 
effort.
    The committee also continued to closely monitor the Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The JLTV program 
represents a significant investment by the Army and Marine 
Corps in developing a new light tactical vehicle that would 
address current capability gaps in performance, protection and 
payload. JLTV is the only new major defense acquisition program 
for TWVs across the Future Years Defense Program and is 
critical for the sustainment of the industrial base. H.R. 1960, 
as passed by the House, authorized $134.6 million, the full 
amount requested for the JLTV program. H.R. 3304, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would direct 
$134.6 million, the full amount requested for JLTV program. 
H.R. 3979 authorizes $229.3 million, the full amount requested 
for the JLTV program that continues to remain on cost and on 
schedule.

                         Army Aviation Programs

    During the 113th Congress, the committee provided oversight 
on legacy rotorcraft platforms, including the CH-47, UH-60, AH-
64, and OH-58 platforms, and continued to note the importance 
of these platforms, as well as indicate that they will likely 
continue operation at high operational tempos in very 
challenging environments. The committee has highlighted the 
need to continue to upgrade and reset these critical equipment 
platforms for both the Active and Reserve Components through 
formal activities that included a field hearing. In addition to 
its oversight of aviation requirements for, and performance in 
combat operations, the committee has closely monitored the 
Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) as well as future 
Army combat aviation programs. In particular, the committee has 
focused on the Army's restructured acquisition plan resulting 
from the cancellation of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, 
the divestment of the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior fleet, and the 
possible transfer of AH-64 Apache helicopters from the National 
Guard to the Active Component. The committee engaged in senior 
level discussions with Army and National Guard leadership, the 
Government Accountability Office, and retired General officers 
in order to gain a better understanding of the Army's intent 
with the ARI. The committee also conducted oversight on the 
initiation of modernization programs such as the Joint Future 
Theater Lift (JFTL) program and the critical need for aircraft 
survivability equipment upgrades to provide warning and 
protection against evolving surface-to-air missile threats.
    With regard to the JFTL program, the committee continued to 
support ongoing research efforts to develop next-generation 
rotorcraft capabilities. The committee has expressed concerns 
that senior leadership of the military services and the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense have yet to establish a set of 
validated, reconciled, tested, and achievable technology 
requirements for the JFTL program.
    H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, fully supported the 
budget request for Army Aviation. H.R. 1960 also provided an 
additional $135.0 million for the Light Utility Helicopter 
(LUH). H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, directed an additional $75.0 million for the 
LUH program.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, fully 
supported the budget request for Army Aviation with funding for 
197 new rotorcraft. In addition, the H.R. 3979 addressed 
critical shortfalls in Army National Guard rotorcraft 
modernization and authorized an additional $103.0 million for 
the most modernized version of the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter, 
solely for the Army National Guard. H.R. 3979 would establish a 
National Commission on the Future of the Army and prevent the 
transfer of any National Guard AH-64 Apache helicopters in 
fiscal year 2015. H.R. 3979 also clarifies the limitations on 
the authority of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
the Army with respect to the potential transfer of up to 48 AH-
64 Apache attack helicopters in fiscal year 2016 from the Army 
National Guard to the regular Army pending certification from 
the Secretary of Defense.

                      Army Communications Programs

    During the 113th Congress, the committee, in particular the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, continued to 
place emphasis on the growing importance of battlefield 
communications networks in global combat operations. The 
committee has aggressively monitored the Army's plans for its 
future battlefield network and the supporting research programs 
now being resourced by the Army and Marine Corps. In 
particular, the committee has focused oversight efforts on the 
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) and the follow-
on efforts resulting from the restructured Joint Tactical Radio 
System (JTRS) programs. The committee continued to work with 
the Army to ensure that the future battlefield capabilities it 
creates result in a network-enabled, rather than a network-
dependent, Army. The committee also closely monitored the 
Army's ongoing Network Integration Exercises that occur at Fort 
Bliss, Texas; the committee worked with the tactical network 
industrial base, as well as the Army, to help mitigate any 
potential barriers to participation in the these exercises. The 
committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and 
Land Forces, provided oversight on the Army's Tactical Network 
Modernization roadmap. The roadmap is a blueprint for industry 
and Government to focus development efforts and bring forward 
innovations to fill potential capability gaps. It will also 
help direct the Army's limited modernization resources to 
investments that will have the greatest short-, mid- and long-
term impact for the end user.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
briefing on the Army's Tactical Network on July 30, 2014. The 
purpose was to allow Members to gain a better understanding of 
the core capabilities provided by the Army's Tactical Network, 
as well as to discuss the issues and challenges facing those 
network programs and associated industrial base.

            Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment

    During the 113th Congress, the committee, in particular the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, continued to 
devote substantial attention to the oversight of individual 
body armor, personnel protection equipment, and other 
complementary individual equipment programs through: 
legislation; informal and formal discussions with the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, Army and Marine Corps senior 
leadership; briefings and hearings; coordination with the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit teams; and other 
formal and informal activities. Focus areas included but were 
not limited to: advances in weight reduction (``lightening the 
load'') for clothing and individual equipment, especially 
personnel protection equipment; development of specific body 
armor systems for military servicewomen; small arms and small 
caliber ammunition modernization with particular emphasis on 
the Army's individual carbine program and handgun program; 
improved combat helmets to better protect against ballistic 
threats as well as prevent traumatic brain injury; improved 
camouflage uniforms, and flame resistant/fire retardant 
uniforms; long-term management and viability of these 
associated niche industrial bases to include ways to 
incentivize industry to invest in research and development.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide an 
assessment of the long term sustainment requirements for the 
body armor industrial base, to include supply chains for combat 
helmets, soft armor, and hard armor components. The committee 
finally received this assessment in March 2014 and the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces reviewed this 
assessment extensively. The report's findings influenced the 
legislation of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015.
    H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, and the committee report 
(H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, addressed the critical 
need to reduce the weight of individual warfighter equipment, 
improve acquisition practices used for this gear, and requires 
the Secretary of Defense to assess options for providing 
personnel protection equipment specifically fitted for the 
female warfighter. H.R. 3304, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, supports the 
legislation contained in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, 
supports weight reduction initiatives, fully funds body armor 
and personal protection equipment (PPE) programs, as well as 
notes the importance of treating PPE as a weapon system rather 
than an expendable commodity. H.R. 3304 would also require more 
detailed budget exhibits for PPE programs.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
addressed committee concerns regarding the body armor 
industrial base. Based on the required assessment mentioned 
above, as well as other assessments the committee reviewed from 
the Defense Logistics Agency, the committee believed there was 
significant risk to the body armor industrial base both in the 
near-term and the long-term. H.R. 3979 authorized an additional 
$80.0 million as an industrial base risk mitigation effort for 
body armor. The committee believes the additional funds would 
prevent any unnecessary breaks in production, and help maintain 
a competitive industrial base.

                   Tactical Aircraft Force Structure

    During the 113th Congress, the committee continued to 
investigate the adequacy of fighter force structure in both the 
Navy and the Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and 
Land Forces held a hearing on these issues on March 26, 2014. 
The Navy witness testified that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are 
reaching the end of their projected service-life and will 
require replacement or modifications to further extend their 
service-life to eventual deployment of the F-35 aircraft, and 
noted that the Department of the Navy's strike fighter 
shortfall would reach a manageable level of 35 aircraft in 
2023. Also at the hearing on March 26, 2014, the Air Force 
witness testified to an Air Force requirement for 1,900 fighter 
aircraft, but fiscal constraints resulted in a need to retire 
334 fighter aircraft leaving the Air Force significantly below 
its requirement of 1,900 fighter aircraft. The Air Force noted 
that it planned to retire about 100 A-10 aircraft in fiscal 
year 2015. To maintain remaining force structure, Air Force 
officials informed the subcommittee that any shortfall 
mitigation will include executing funded sustainment and fleet 
management actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30 and 32 aircraft, 
newer block 40 and 50 service life extension, and targeted 
modernization and examination of the overall force structure to 
ensure viable warfighting capabilities are maintained. H.R. 
3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, authorized an 
increase of 5 EA-18G aircraft for the Navy and the requested 
procurement to extend the life of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B 
fleets. H.R. 3979 also authorized the entire Air Force request 
for modifications to its A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35 
fleets. H.R. 3979 also included a provision that would prohibit 
the Air Force from retiring any A-10 aircraft in fiscal year 
2015, but would allow 36 A-10 aircraft to be placed into back-
up inventory (BAI) status subject to a certification by the 
Secretary of Defense concerning the requirement to place these 
aircraft into BAI status to enable readiness of the Air Force's 
fighter aircraft fleets. Additionally, H.R. 3979 authorized the 
budget request of $6.7 billion for 34 F-35 aircraft and $1.6 
billion for F-35 development.

                       F-35/Joint Strike Fighter

    During the 113th Congress, the committee continued 
oversight of the F-35 program.
    At a hearing on March 26, 2014, before the Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) Director of Acquisition and Sourcing testified 
that as a result of the F-35 acquisition baseline determined in 
early 2010, costs and schedule have been relatively stable. The 
GAO witness also testified that delays in developmental flight 
testing of the F-35's critical software may hinder delivery of 
expected warfighting capabilities to the military services. The 
GAO witness noted that F-35 developmental flight testing 
comprises two key areas: mission systems and flight sciences. 
Mission systems testing verifies that the software-intensive 
systems that provide critical warfighting capabilities function 
properly and meet requirements, while flight sciences testing 
verifies the aircraft's basic flying capabilities. Challenges 
in development and testing of mission systems software 
continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software 
delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered, 
and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software 
versions. The GAO witness also testified that aircraft 
manufacturing continued to improve in 2013, and management of 
the supply chain is evolving. As the number of aircraft in 
production has increased, critical learning has taken place and 
manufacturing efficiency has improved. As an example, the GAO 
witness cited the fact that the prime contractor has seen 
reductions in overall labor hours needed to manufacture the 
aircraft, as expected. Moreover, in 2013, the GAO witness noted 
that the contractor delivered 35 aircraft to the Government, 5 
more than it delivered in 2012, and 26 more than it delivered 
in 2011, and that the prime contractor has put in place a 
supplier management system to oversee key supplier performance. 
The GAO witness also noted that to execute the program as 
planned, the DOD will have to increase funds steeply over the 
next 5 years and sustain an average of $12.6 billion per year 
through 2037, and that annual funding of this magnitude poses 
long-term affordability risks given the current fiscal 
environment.
    In June 2014, the committee received the independent 
software report required by section 218 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The 
independent software review team reported timelines for 
completing F-35 software blocks were longer than expected or 
predicted by the F-35 Joint Program Office. The committee has 
recently received briefings from the F-35 Program Executive 
Officer who has assured the committee that recommendations of 
the report are being carefully considered by the F-35 Joint 
Program Office, and most have been implemented. The F-35 
Program Executive Officer (PEO) recently reported to the 
committee that the timelines identified by the independent 
software team are still overly pessimistic, and that earlier 
software releases will occur much earlier than the independent 
software team predicted. The F-35 PEO also reported that 
estimated releases for later software blocks continue to 
improve and will also be much earlier than those predicted by 
the independent software review team. The committee will 
continue to receive quarterly updates on F-35 software 
progress.
    On June 23, 2014, an F-35A stationed at Eglin Air Force 
Base, Florida had a serious flight mishap resulting from an 
engine failure and fire. The cause of the engine failure and 
fire has been determined to be due to excessive rubbing between 
an engine stator and adjacent plate seals. The F-35 Joint 
Program Office and the engine manufacturer have identified both 
short-term and long-term corrections to this problem. The 
flight test schedule has been minimally affected. The committee 
continues to monitor both the short-term and long-term 
corrections to F-35 engines.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
authorize the budget request of $6.7 billion for 34 F-35 
aircraft and $1.6 billion for F-35 development.

                           Aviation Programs

    Through its oversight activities, the committee noted that 
the B-52 strategic radar replacement (SRR) program replaced the 
current B-52 radar fielded in the 1960s and then upgraded in 
the 1970s and 1980s. Although sustainable through the current 
service life of the B-52, the legacy radar system mean-time-
between-failure continues to degrade, and sustainment costs are 
expected to significantly increase after 2017. The SRR program 
is a radar replacement program that may take advantage of the 
advanced capabilities of modern non-developmental radars, 
maximizing commonality with other platforms. However, the SRR 
program was terminated in the budget request for fiscal year 
2013 due to Air Force budget constraints and the need to fund 
other, higher priorities. Although the committee understands 
that affordability concerns were the primary driver for the SRR 
program termination, it is unclear to the committee how the 
Secretary of the Air Force intends to afford the legacy radar 
system knowing that sustainment costs are predicted to 
significantly increase after 2017. The committee encourages the 
Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement an 
affordability strategy for maintaining radar capability on the 
B-52 aircraft through its predicted service-life of 2040 and to 
communicate that strategy to the congressional defense 
committees soon after the affordability strategy is developed. 
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
authorize the budget request of $180.4 million for B-52 
modifications and $55.5 million for B-52 system development.
    Through its oversight activities, regarding the previously 
terminated B-52 CONECT program in the budget request for fiscal 
year 2013, the committee supported the Secretary's decision 
reinstating the program in the fiscal year 2014 budget request 
and is pleased that the Secretary supports modifying all 76 B-
52 aircraft, instead of originally just 28 aircraft, with 
CONECT capability. A dissimilar capability configuration would 
have added complexity to supply chain management, aircrew 
certification, training and employment, and would have 
inherently complicated combatant commander operational planning 
and execution by having to account for dissimilar aircraft 
capabilities.
    Through its classified oversight activities, the committee 
maintains oversight of the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) 
acquisition program.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee notes that 
the Secretary of the Air Force invested nearly $1.5 billion of 
taxpayer dollars for engineering, manufacturing, development, 
and testing of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 
and has entered Low Rate Initial Production, but has no plans 
to continue procurement and installation of C-130 AMP onto 
legacy C-130H aircraft. The Secretary had no plans to modernize 
or upgrade the C-130H propulsion system in order to increase 
reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and on-wing time of 
the engine, as well as to decrease the overall cost and 
maintenance burden of the current propulsion system. The 
Secretary has also not articulated to the committee a coherent 
plan for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C-130H fleet or how 
the Department of the Air Force plans to maintain medium-sized 
intra-theater airlift capacity and capability within both the 
Active and Reserve Components. Knowing that the majority of the 
C-130H fleet resides within the Reserve Components of the Air 
Force and that the C-130H should remain reliable, capable, and 
relevant to meeting current and future warfighter needs, the 
committee is concerned with the lack of initiative that the 
Secretary has taken with regard to the modernization and 
upgrade of C-130H aircraft. The committee also notes that 
through cost reduction initiatives and efficiencies gained in 
the C-130 AMP over the past year, the cost data that the 
Secretary used as justification for canceling the C-130 AMP in 
the budget request was no longer relevant. H.R. 3979 includes a 
provision that would prohibit the Department of the Air Force 
from taking any action to cancel or modify the C-130 AMP, but 
would allow the Air Force to conduct communication, navigation 
and surveillance and air traffic management programs subject to 
a Secretary of Defense certification to the congressional 
defense committees. H.R. 3979 also included an increase of 
$30.0 million for C-130H propulsion system upgrades and an 
increase of $35.8 million for the C-130 AMP.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee closely 
monitors the KC-46A engineering, manufacturing, and development 
program. The KC-46A program office has complied with the 
committee request that the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provide the committee 
quarterly reviews of the Air Force's KC-46A program to maintain 
sufficient and effective oversight. The committee also 
requested that the Comptroller General of the United States 
provide the committee with an annual review of the development 
program. Through an oversight hearing, the committee gained a 
further understanding of the KC-46 program and was provided a 
thorough update of the KC-46 program completed milestones. The 
committee will continue oversight of the KC-46 program through 
staff level briefings and future hearings.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognizes 
the challenges associated with the development of a new U.S. 
Navy threat target system, Multi-Stage Supersonic Target 
(MSST), given the assessed complexity and capabilities of the 
actual threat missile. However, the committee also remains 
concerned that the Navy still does not have a threat 
representative target fielded in order to assess 
vulnerabilities and susceptibilities of naval air defense 
systems, as well as to assess the effectiveness of potential 
countermeasures that could be developed to defend against an 
MSST threat. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary 
to maintain a robust and fully resourced MSST development 
strategy and encouraged the Secretary to provide the committee 
frequent updates as the MSST program progresses toward its May 
2016 IOC milestone.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee notes that 
in 2009, the U.S. Pacific Fleet validated an Urgent Operational 
Needs Statement for an over-the-horizon surface warfare missile 
that can be launched from aircraft or surface vessels and 
strike well-defended, moving maritime targets without the 
reliance on external inputs. The committee supports the 
Secretary of the Navy's pursuit for the rapid development and 
deployment of a long-range, anti-ship missile that is capable 
of penetrating sophisticated enemy air-defense systems from 
long range and provided an authorization of appropriations for 
this program in H.R. 3979.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee notes that 
the Secretary of the Navy has not fully leveraged technology 
development activities in the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) 
program that would reduce Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aircraft 
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system program risk. The 
committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy again reduced 
the planned scope of technology development activities in 
fiscal year 2014 for the UCAS program by deleting the 
requirement for the X-47B aircraft to demonstrate unmanned 
autonomous aerial refueling from an airborne tanker, thereby 
increasing the development risk in the UCLASS program. The 
committee disagreed with the Secretary's approach to the UCAS 
program and disagreed with increasing the concurrency and 
developmental risk being sewn into the acquisition strategy of 
the UCLASS program. To address these issues, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) includes a provision for UCLASS that would: limit the 
acquisition to no more than six prototype aircraft prior to a 
Milestone B award; require the Navy to provide quarterly cost, 
schedule, and execution reports to the congressional defense 
committees; and, require the Comptroller General to provide the 
congressional defense committees annual reports on the 
acquisition strategy and execution of the UCLASS program. The 
committee was also concerned about requirements associated with 
the UCLASS program and included section 217 of H.R. 3979 that 
would require the Secretary of Defense to certify the current 
set of requirements.

                         Shipbuilding Programs

    The committee continues its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments 
are made and the Navy achieves the force structure, with 
appropriate capabilities, needed to meet requirements. 
Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of 
credible combat power, global presence, and humanitarian 
assistance are all core Navy missions that the committee 
remains focused on during this time of economic constraints.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee faces the 
challenge of balancing current demands on an aging fleet within 
current economic constraints. As of December 8, 2014, the Navy 
indicated they currently support 289 deployable battle force 
ships. This available force structure contrasts the Navy's 2013 
requirements projection of 306 ships and the 2010 Quadrennial 
Defense Review Independent Panel requirement of 346 ships. 
Despite these shortfalls, the committee seeks to obtain the 
required capability and provide stability to the shipbuilding 
industrial base.
    Preeminent in this Navy force structure is the aircraft 
carrier, which represents the embodiment of the United States' 
ability to project power. Congress reiterated this support in 
the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979, the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and indicated that ``we 
believe that Congress has been unambiguous about the support of 
operational aircraft carriers and have provided sufficient 
authorization of appropriations in this Act to maintain this 
[11] carrier force structure. We fully anticipate that the 
administration will support a budget request for fiscal year 
2016 that is consistent with title 10, United States Code.''
    Supporting this aircraft carrier force structure is the USS 
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is the lead ship of the Ford-
class of aircraft carriers. Technologies introduced with the 
USS Gerald R. Ford have challenged the Navy to maintain cost 
controls on the lead ship. To address these cost issues, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public 
Law 113-66) includes a provision that would amend section 122 
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by: (1) adjusting the 
cost cap for CVN-78 from $10,500.0 million to $12,887.0 
million; (2) adjusting the cost cap for subsequent ships in the 
class from $8,100.0 million to $11,498.0 million; (3) adding a 
new factor for adjustment, allowing increases or decreases in 
the cost of CVN-78 that are attributable to the shipboard test 
program, but only when the changes result for urgent and 
unforeseen testing problems that would delay delivery or 
initial operating capability of the ship; (4) requiring 
quarterly updates on the cost of CVN-79; and (5) directing the 
Secretary of the Navy to ensure that each prime contract for 
CVN-79 includes an incentive fee structure that will, 
throughout the entire period of performance of the contract, 
provide incentives for each contractor to meet the portion of 
the cost of the ship for which the contractor is responsible.
    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also 
continues its oversight of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 
program. Public Law 113-66 includes a provision that would 
restrict funding associated with LCS-25 and LCS-26 until: (1) 
the Navy provides certain reports about the LCS program; and 
(2) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes certain 
certifications about the LCS program. Section 122 of H.R. 3979 
also includes additional restrictions associated with mission 
modules for the Littoral Combat Ship.
    Finally, section 1026 of H.R. 3979 would limit the 
obligation and expenditure of funds for fiscal year 2015 
associated with the retirement, inactivation, or storage of 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class amphibious 
ships. This section would also require the modernization of two 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers to begin in fiscal year 2015.

    Military Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs

    Manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) system programs have come to constitute a 
significant component of the overall Department of Defense 
force structure. The capability provided by these assets is 
critical to sustaining deterrence and warfighting capability of 
U.S. forces. The committee has continued to focus on the 
budget, cost, schedule, and performance outcomes of major 
manned and unmanned aerial systems programs and examine the ISR 
enterprise for balance in collection and analysis capabilities. 
Also, close scrutiny of Office of the Secretary of Defense ISR 
policy formulation and oversight have been and will continue to 
be of interest to the committee. Long-standing concerns of the 
committee remain: lack of an adequate long-term ISR 
architecture and acquisition strategy; lack of supporting 
analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance 
collection programs data output with adequate resources to 
process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; and 
unnecessary proliferation of manned and unmanned vehicles and 
sensors. The committee will expect the Joint Staff and Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council to take a more active role in 
coordinating ISR system acquisition and coordinating employment 
with the combatant commanders.
    In the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on 
March 26, 2014, on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combat 
aviation programs. Witnesses for this hearing included the 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition; Deputy Commandant of the Marine 
Corps for Aviation; Director of the Navy Air Warfare Division; 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; and the 
Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and 
Requirements. Among other issues, this hearing reviewed the 
Department of Defense budget requests for unmanned aerial 
systems for fiscal year 2015 including the requests for the RQ-
4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems, and the 
U-2. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
provided the amounts of the budget request for the RQ-4 and U-
2, added $98.0 million for additional MQ-9 Reaper unmanned 
aerial systems, and included a provision that would prohibit 
the Air Force from taking any action to retire, or prepare to 
retire, U-2 aircraft in fiscal year 2015.

                        Directed Energy Programs

    Each of the military services and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense within the Department of Defense have 
continued to fund numerous directed energy research and 
development efforts for the last three decades. While some 
limited capabilities have been successfully demonstrated, in 
most cases the results achieved have not lived up to 
expectations. The committee continued to support promising 
efforts within science and technology programs, as they also 
support missile defense and other emerging concepts for 
countering anti-access and area denial threats. The committee 
has closely examined organizing concepts provided by the 
military services and the Office of Secretary of Defense to 
determine how best to support the transition of these 
capabilities from demonstrations to programs of record. 
Additionally, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities conducted detailed oversight of 
specific Directed Energy programs and activities within 
Defense-wide and Service science and technology programs and 
activities.
    H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, included several 
legislative provisions related to directed energy weapons, 
specifically: a plan for protecting tier one task critical 
assets of the Department of Defense from electromagnetic pulse 
and high powered microwave systems; a requirement to establish 
a funding line and fielding plan for Navy laser weapons 
systems; and a sense of Congress on the counter-electronic high 
power microwave missile project.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee also included several directives related to directed 
energy weapons, including a briefing on Army directed energy 
testing; a briefing on the Maritime Laser Weapons System; a 
briefing on foreign directed energy threats to U.S. military 
systems; and a briefing on test and evaluation capabilities for 
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high powered microwave (HPM) 
systems.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, includes several legislative provisions 
related to directed energy weapons, including a sense of 
Congress on the counter-electronic high power microwave missile 
project, and a directive to the Defense Intelligence Agency for 
a report on EMP and HPM threats to military infrastructure.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee also included several 
directives related to directed energy weapons, including a 
briefing on the plan for the future of the Army's High Energy 
Laser Mobile Demonstrator; a briefing on the performance of the 
Navy Laser Weapon System after deployment aboard the USS Ponce 
this fiscal year; a briefing on the near-term needs of the 
combatant commanders for a counter-electronics capability; and 
a briefing by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 
impact of funding reductions for non-lethal systems on current 
contingency operations planning.

         Nuclear Deterrence and the Nuclear Security Enterprise

    In the 113th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the atomic energy defense activities of the 
Department of Energy and nuclear policies and programs of the 
Department of Defense to ensure the safety, security, 
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. 
Particular emphasis has been placed on Department of Energy and 
Department of Defense nuclear modernization plans and 
associated funding requirements, proposed changes to nuclear 
weapons policy and posture, and the effectiveness of 
institutional structures that support the nuclear security 
enterprise and interagency decision-making related to nuclear 
weapons.
    In the first session of the 113th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on February 28, 
2013, ``Nuclear Security: Actions, Accountability, and 
Reform.'' This hearing continued the subcommittee's oversight 
of the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 
Administration's (NNSA) efforts to address the problems 
highlighted by the July 2012 security intrusion at the Y-12 
National Security Complex. On March 19, 2013, the Subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces held a hearing on ``The U.S. Nuclear 
Deterrent: What are the Requirements for a Strong Deterrent in 
an Era of Defense Sequester?'' This hearing featured non-
governmental expert witnesses and discussed future plans for 
the U.S. nuclear deterrent in an age of increasingly scarce 
resources.
    On May 9, 2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a 
hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs.'' At 
this annual budget request hearing, Members inquired about 
Department of Energy and Department of Defense nuclear weapons 
and infrastructure modernization plans, implementation of the 
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), defense 
environmental cleanup, and the proposed resources for these and 
other nuclear programs. On October 29, 2013, the Subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces held a hearing on ``Nuclear Weapons 
Modernization Programs: Military, Technical, and Political 
Requirements for the B61 Life Extension Program (LEP) and 
Future Stockpile Strategy'' that focused on a key subset of 
such programs. The witness panel, comprised of the key 
Government and national laboratory leaders with responsibility 
for the B61 LEP, discussed the requirements driving the ongoing 
LEP, the policies and decisions that led to the LEP, the 
current status of the LEP, and the funding required to 
successfully execute the program.
    In addition to hearings, the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces held a classified briefing on February 5, 2013, on the 
status and future of nuclear weapons programs in foreign 
nations. The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also assisted the 
committee by supporting a classified briefing on June 27, 2013, 
on arms control treaty violations by the Russian Federation and 
how such violations may impact the Administration's proposals 
for U.S. nuclear weapons policy. On July 18, 2013, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a classified briefing on 
the same topic at the subcommittee-level. Finally, on September 
10, 2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a 
classified briefing on the status of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile with the directors of the Nation's three nuclear 
weapons laboratories.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions 
related to nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security 
enterprise. This includes provisions that would provide 
additional congressional oversight mechanisms for nuclear force 
structure decisions, strengthen interagency coordination on 
nuclear weapons decision-making, provide momentum and increase 
congressional oversight of efforts to reform security practices 
at the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 
Administration, require a long-term plan for cleanup of the 
Nation's largest defense nuclear waste site, and continue 
reforms to create a more effective and efficient nuclear 
security enterprise.
    In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee 
continued its oversight of nuclear deterrence and the nuclear 
security enterprise with a series of hearings and briefings. On 
February 11, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a 
closed briefing on nuclear weapon and missile developments in 
South Asia. On March 5, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces conducted another classified briefing in the ongoing 
series of updates on arms control compliance. On March 26, 
2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held an open hearing 
to discuss the ``Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on the 
Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise,'' where Members 
discussed the initial findings of a congressionally-mandated 
independent advisory panel exploring longstanding problems at 
the Department of Energy and NNSA.
    On April 8, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held 
a hearing on ``Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Atomic 
Energy Defense and Nuclear Forces,'' where members reviewed the 
annual budget request for all nuclear weapons related 
activities in DOE and DOD. The subcommittee also held a 
classified briefing on June 26, 2014 on Russia's strategic 
forces programs in which members received the latest 
intelligence information on Russia's nuclear weapons and 
missile operations and modernization programs. On July 15, 
2014, the subcommittee supported a classified for the full 
committee on the nuclear weapons capabilities and programs of 
foreign nations.
    On July 17, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held 
a hearing with nongovernmental expert witnesses to explore and 
discuss ``Russian Violations of the Intermediate-range Nuclear 
Forces Treaty: After detection--what?'' The subcommittee held a 
follow-on classified briefing on this same topic, but with 
government witnesses, on September 17, 2014. On September 18, 
2014, the subcommittee received a classified briefing from the 
directors of the Nation's nuclear weapons laboratories and the 
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command on their annual assessments 
of the health of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. On 
November 18, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a 
closed briefing to discuss the ongoing nuclear negotiations 
with the Islamic Republic of Iran and explore the implications 
of providing Iran relief from sanctions. On December 4, 2014, 
the subcommittee held a classified briefing on strategic 
capabilities in foreign countries and foreign efforts to gain 
technological superiority over U.S. military forces.
    Finally, on December 10, 2014, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held both an open hearing and a classified 
briefing, together with the Committee on Foreign Affairs' 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade on 
``Russian Arms Control Cheating and the Administration's 
Responses.'' These two oversight events allowed Members to 
explore, in detail and all levels of classification, all 
aspects of Russia's violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Forces Treaty and the Administration's subsequent actions and 
plans.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
includes several provisions related to nuclear forces and the 
nuclear security enterprise. These include provisions that 
would: require that all existing intercontinental ballistic 
missile silos be kept in a ``warm'' status that enables them to 
be made fully operational in the future; ensure delays in 
development and production of the long-range standoff weapon 
are minimized; strengthen congressional oversight of nuclear 
infrastructure modernization projects; require demonstration of 
a responsive plutonium pit production capability by certain 
dates in the 2020s; create an Advisory Board on Toxic 
Substances and Worker Health; require regular cost estimates by 
the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of operating, 
sustaining, and modernizing the nuclear deterrent; and, 
authorize a program for the design and use of prototypes of 
nuclear weapons to further intelligence estimates with respect 
to foreign nuclear weapons activities.

                            Missile Defense

    The committee oversees the Department of Defense's efforts 
to develop, test, and field layered missile defense 
capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed forces, 
and its friends and allies against the full range of ballistic 
missile threats. Particular emphasis has been placed on U.S. 
homeland missile defense capabilities, European Phased Adaptive 
Approach implementation and ensuring an adequate hedging 
strategy for the protection of the U.S. homeland, developmental 
and operational testing, force structure and inventory 
requirements, sensor-to-shooter integration, and science and 
technology investments in areas such as directed energy. The 
committee closely watched the Administration's funding of the 
missile defense program, seeking the cost-effective application 
of resources, and looking for opportunities to bring greater 
stability to the industrial base.
    The committee continued to monitor foreign ballistic 
missile threats and identified opportunities to strengthen 
international missile defense cooperation with allies and 
partners such as the State of Israel, Japan, and North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization member states. Department of Defense 
oversight and management of missile defense activities, 
including the roles, responsibilities, and acquisition policies 
and procedures of the Missile Defense Agency and military 
services was also reviewed. The committee provided oversight of 
the Administration's missile defense policy and posture, 
including close examination of any Administration efforts that 
may limit missile defenses as part of a treaty or agreement, 
and implications for United States, regional, and global 
security.
    In the first session of the 113th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on May 8, 2013, 
regarding the ``Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request for Missile Defense Program.'' In addition to 
the hearing, the subcommittee also held a classified briefing 
on February 13, 2013, regarding the long-range missile threat 
to the United States. On April 26, 2013, the subcommittee met 
to receive a missile defense briefing from Admiral Syring, 
Director, Missile Defense Agency, including the agency's 
classified programs.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, directs important oversight on homeland and 
regional missile defense programs, Israeli cooperative missile 
defense programs, as well as the Israeli Iron Dome program. 
H.R. 3304 increases funding for the development of a new kill 
vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program as well 
as provides funding for continued planning activities related 
to an additional homeland missile defense site, and the 
deployment of an additional homeland missile defense radar site 
to defend against threats including from the Democratic 
People's Republic of North Korea.
    In the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 25, 
2014, regarding the ``Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs.'' In 
addition to the hearing on the President's budget request, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on July 23, 2014 on ``Adapting U.S. 
Missile Defense for Future Threats: Russia, China and 
Modernizing the NMD Act.''
    Further, the subcommittee held numerous classified 
briefings concerning U.S. missile defenses: January 15, 2014, 
on ``Cruise Missile Threats to the United States and Homeland 
Defense Options and Plans''; February 11, 2014, a briefing on 
``Pakistan: Strategic Forces Developments''; July 9, 2014, a 
briefing with Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Admiral 
James Syring, USN, on ``Missile Defense Classified Programs''; 
November 18, 2014, a briefing on ``Iran and Implications of 
Sanctions Relief''; and, December 4, 2014, a briefing on 
``Implications to United States Strategic Capabilities of 
Foreign Capability Development.''
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
direct important oversight on homeland and regional missile 
defense programs, Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, 
as well as the Israeli Iron Dome program and requirements for 
U.S.-based coproduction with U.S. industry. H.R. 3979 includes 
funding for the development of a redesigned kill vehicle for 
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, as well as 
increased funding for the reliability and maintenance of that 
system. Further, it requires a plan for the robust acquisition 
of the redesigned kill vehicle, as well as requirements to 
increase the reliability of future missile defense programs.

                         National Security Space

    In the first session of the 113th Congress, the committee 
continued its oversight of the Department of Defense's national 
security space programs, which includes the military services, 
combat support agencies, and elements of the Department of 
Defense that are part of the intelligence community.
    On April 25, 2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space 
Activities. Members' oversight questions addressed a range of 
areas including space policy, the impact of sequestration on 
space programs, space launch, commercial satellite services, 
space threats, and space situational awareness. Additionally, 
on July 31, 2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces received 
a briefing on commercial satellite services. The briefing 
addressed new acquisition methods to reduce the cost of 
acquisition of commercial satellite services as well as the 
identification of satellite services being procured from 
certain foreign countries.
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, contained several 
national security space-related legislative provisions, funding 
recommendations, and reporting requirements to include: a 
requirement that the Secretary of the Air Force develop and 
implement a plan to ensure the fair evaluation of competing 
contractors in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program; a 
requirement that the Secretary of Defense notify Congress 
regarding each attempt by a foreign actor to disrupt, deny, or 
destroy a U.S. national security space capability; direction 
that Department officials develop a strategy to enable the 
multi-year procurement of commercial satellite services; and a 
prohibition on the Department from entering into a contracts 
for satellite services with certain foreign entities under a 
set of defined circumstances.
    In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee 
continued its oversight of the Department's national security 
space programs.
    On January 9, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
received a briefing from the National Intelligence Officer for 
Science and Technology, and the Director of the Department of 
Defense Space Security and Defense Program regarding directed 
energy threats and foreign counterspace activity. Following 
this briefing, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces on the People's Republic of China's counterspace program 
and the implications for U.S. national security. The witnesses 
were non-governmental experts. These subcommittee events led up 
to a counterspace briefing on February 6, 2014, with the full 
committee, with briefers from the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
the Air Force, and the Joint Staff.
    On April 3, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held 
a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space 
Activities. The witnesses were the Commander of Air Force Space 
Command, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, and the 
Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space 
in the U.S Strategic Command. The members' oversight questions 
addressed a variety of topics including space launch, 
acquisition of commercial space services, space situational 
awareness, threats to national security space systems, among 
other pertinent topics.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would 
direct several national security space-related policy 
provisions, funding recommendations, and reporting requirements 
to include $220.0 million for the development of a next 
generation rocket propulsion system to transition from the use 
of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative 
for national security space launches and several provisions 
related to space security and defense.
    Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also 
participated in several congressional delegations to oversee 
the national security space program. The members traveled to 
two National Reconnaissance Office ground stations, the 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, the Army 
Space and Missile Defense Command headquarters, Vandenberg Air 
Force Base, Buckley Air Force Base, the Air Force Space and 
Missiles System Center, and several industry facilities.

                   EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES


        Investment in Future Capabilities Science and Technology

    The Department of Defense faces difficult choices as it 
balances the competing needs of capabilities for current 
operations and those projected for future conflicts. In order 
to address the latter, investments must be made in the 
Department's Science and Technology (S&T) programs and aligned 
appropriately with continued development and procurement 
programs to position the Department to meet those future 
challenges. Preparing for the challenges of the future, the 
Department must create a portfolio of technological options 
that can address the perceived threats identified in the 
defense planning process, as well as the emergence of 
unanticipated events or strategic competitors. Overcoming the 
bureaucratic inertia of existing acquisition road maps should 
be more properly balanced with capabilities to institutionalize 
adaptability. With the emergence of nontraditional adversaries 
pursuing ``complex irregular warfare,'' the Department of 
Defense recognized that true transformation required investment 
in additional capability areas that will address low-end 
threats as well as nation-state peer competitors. The committee 
continued to encourage the Department to plan and execute a 
balanced S&T program that ensures the U.S. military can retain 
superiority for future generations.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted several hearings 
and briefings within this area, including: a briefing on 
``Perspectives on the Future National Security Environment: 
Technological, Geopolitical and Economic Trends Affecting the 
Defense Strategic Guidance'' on February 13, 2013; a hearing on 
``Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Department of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology 
Programs'' on April 16, 2013; a hearing on Biodefense: 
Worldwide Threats and Countermeasure Efforts for the Department 
of Defense on October 11, 2013; a briefing on Non-Lethal 
Weapons Systems Policy and Programs on February 28, 2014; a 
hearing on Department of Defense (DOD) Fiscal Year 2015 Science 
and Technology Programs: Pursuing Technology Superiority in a 
Changing Security Environment on March 26, 2014; and a hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for the Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program: 
Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing Global 
Environment on April 8, 2014.
    The committee incorporated several legislative provisions 
related to science and technology in H.R. 1960, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by 
the House, to include: extension of authority to award prizes 
for advanced technology achievements; extension of a pilot 
program on technology protection features; establishment of a 
new authority for enhanced technology transfer of software 
developed at Department of Defense laboratories; clarification 
on eligibility for the defense experimental program to 
stimulate competitive research; extension and expansion of 
section 219 authority for defense laboratories; establishment 
of a pilot program on proof of concept commercialization; and 
establishment of a defense science initiative for personnel. In 
the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee included several directives related to science and 
technology, including a briefing on sustainment of 
sociocultural capabilities of the Department of Defense.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions 
related to science and technology, including: extension of 
authority to award prizes for advanced technology achievements; 
extension of a pilot program on technology protection features; 
establishment of a new authority for enhanced technology 
transfer of software developed at Department of Defense 
laboratories; extension and expansion of section 219 authority 
for defense laboratories; establishment of a pilot program on 
proof of concept commercialization; modification to the 
biennial strategic plan of the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency; and temporary hiring authority for personnel 
in the defense laboratories.
    H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included several 
legislative provisions related to science and technology, 
including: revision of the service requirement for the Science, 
Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART) program; 
revision of the requirement for acquisition programs to 
maintain defense research facility records; modifications to 
the cost-sharing requirement for defense exportability features 
program; extension of the contract authority for advanced 
capability development; amendments to the authority for the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to carry out 
certain prototype projects; establishment of a government-wide 
authority for commercialization of basic research through the 
Small Business Technology Transfer program; additions to the 
list of science and technology reinvention labs; and permanent 
authority for the experimental hiring authority for scientific 
and technical personnel.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included several directives 
related to science and technology, including: a briefing on the 
rationale and impact on the decision to cease reimbursable work 
for Federal agencies outside of the Navy; a briefing on the 
Department's technical capabilities to experimentally study 
military relevant High Reynolds Number turbulent boundary 
layers; a requirement to issue updated policy guidance related 
to the use of non-profit research institutions that clarifies 
their role in the research ecosystem; an assessment of the 
organization, missions, authorities, and health of the defense 
research and development enterprise; a briefing on the measures 
and metrics used by the Department to better understand how the 
Department is fulfilling the guidance related to historically 
black colleges and universities; a briefing on the status of 
the associated Spectrum Roadmap and Action Plan, as well as a 
science and technology roadmap for technologies that are needed 
to improve spectrum efficiency; and a briefing on the 
coordination between the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Health and Human Services through the Public 
Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE).
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
included several legislative provisions related to science and 
technology, including: modification of the authority to offer 
prizes for advanced technology achievements; modifications to 
the manufacturing technology program; modifications to the 
reporting for the deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Systems Engineering; revision of the service requirement for 
the SMART program; revision of the requirement for acquisition 
programs to maintain defense research facility records; 
modifications to the cost-sharing requirement for defense 
exportability features program; extension of the contract 
authority for advanced capability development; amendments to 
the authority for DARPA to carry out certain prototype 
projects; establishment of a pilot program for DARPA to assign 
private sector personnel as program managers; establishment of 
a pilot program to enhance preparation of military dependent 
children for careers in scientific fields; modifications to the 
pilot program for proof of concept commercialization centers; 
additions to the list of science and technology reinvention 
labs; and permanent authority for the experimental hiring 
authority for scientific and technical personnel.

                     Cyber Operations Capabilities

    Cyber operations have taken on an increasingly important 
role in military operations as well as national security. 
Accordingly, the committee continued to closely examine the 
Department of Defense's cyber operations, organization, manning 
and funding to ensure the military has the freedom of maneuver 
to conduct the range of missions in the Nation's defense, and 
when called upon, to support interagency and international 
partners. An important oversight role for the committee and the 
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
regarding the conduct of defensive and offensive cyber 
operations has been to ensure proper legal and policy 
frameworks are in place and are followed. The committee 
continued to oversee military cyber operations to ensure they 
are properly integrated into combatant commander's operational 
plans so that adequate capabilities exist, or are in 
development, to employ these cyberspace operational tools with 
rigor and discretion to support a full range of options for 
national decision makers. In the course of monitoring the 
cybersecurity posture of the military, the committee also 
continued to examine the effects of globalization on the 
assured integrity of microelectronics and software.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted several hearings 
and briefings within this area, including: a hearing on 
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization 
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force'' on March 13, 
2013; cyber operations briefings on March 20, 2013, December 4, 
2013, and December 3, 2014; and, a hearing on Information 
Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization and Policy 
Issues in a Changing National Security Environment on March 12, 
2014.
    The committee included several legislative provisions 
related to cyber operations capabilities in H.R. 1960, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
passed by the House, to include: limitation on availability of 
funds for defensive cyberspace operations of the Air Force; 
establishment of a cryptographic modernization oversight and 
advisory board; an assessment of United States Cyber Command by 
the Defense Science Board; a mission analysis for cyber 
operations of Department of Defense; creation of a small 
business cybersecurity solutions office; and establishment of a 
small business cyber education program.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the 
committee also included several directives related to cyber 
operations capabilities, including: an assessment of the cyber 
centers of academic excellence; a briefing on coordination of 
cyber and electronic warfare capabilities; and a briefing on 
actions being considered to encourage adoption of the 
cybersecurity framework.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions 
related to cyber operations, including: limitation on 
availability of funds for defensive cyberspace operations of 
the Air Force; establishment of a communications security 
oversight and advisory board; a mission analysis for cyber 
operations of Department of Defense; a briefing on cyber threat 
awareness and outreach; synchronization of cryptographic 
systems for major defense acquisition programs; new supervision 
authorities for the acquisition of cloud computing 
capabilities; an assessment of cyber vulnerabilities of 
Department of Defense weapon systems and tactical 
communications systems; establishment of joint federated 
centers of excellence for trusted defense systems; development 
of a policy on controlling the proliferation of cyber weapons; 
development of a policy on cyber deterrence; an assessment of 
the cyber centers of academic excellence; and new authorities 
and oversight for U.S. Cyber Command.
    H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, 
included several legislative provisions related to cyber 
operations, including: establishment of an executive agent for 
cyber test and training ranges; promotion of an outreach and 
education program to assist small businesses in understanding 
and responding to cyber threats; notification by the Secretary 
of Defense or Director of National Intelligence when a company 
suspected of being influenced by a foreign country is competing 
for, or has been awarded, a contract affecting certain covered 
networks; a sense of Congress on the role of the National Guard 
in defending against cyber attacks; a certification by the 
Director of National Intelligence related to the activities of 
certain cyber operations capabilities needs; and a briefing on 
the ten National Guard cyber protection teams being created in 
this fiscal year.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included several directives 
related to cyber operations, including: an analysis and 
briefing on the Department's strategy for utilizing field 
programmable gate-arrays in the Department's microelectronics 
strategy; a report by the Comptroller General of the United 
States reviewing the Department's program related to trusted 
foundry, trusted suppliers, and other supply chain risk 
management activities; a briefing assessing the approaches 
currently taken to mitigate counterfeit parts in the supply 
system; a report on the Air Force investment in cyber; a report 
by the Comptroller General of the United States on the 
organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command 
and its operational relationship with the geographic combatant 
commands; a report by the Comptroller General of the United 
States evaluating the Department's efforts at protecting 
against insider threats; and a plan for improving cyber 
situational awareness tools.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
included several legislative provisions related to cyber 
operations, including: establishment of an executive agent for 
cyber test and another for cyber training ranges; a sense of 
Congress on the role of the reserve components in defending 
against cyber attacks; notification when the Secretary of 
Defense determines there is a national security threat against 
an information technology or telecommunications network that 
might cause a risk to Department of Defense operations or 
programs; require designation of a network to conduct a pilot 
program for cyberspace mapping; submit a review of cross domain 
solution policy and strategy; establish a major force program 
for the budgeting and accounting of resources supporting cyber 
mission forces; a strategy to develop and deploy decryption 
services for the Joint Information Environment; reporting on 
penetrations into networks of operationally critical 
contractors; a plan for education of members of the Armed 
Forces on cyber matters; and establishment of a regime to 
identify and potentially sanction entities determined to be 
conducting economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace.
    In addition, in the Joint Explanatory Statement 
accompanying H.R. 3979, includes directives that would require: 
a briefing on the ten National Guard cyber protection teams 
being created in the current fiscal year and an assessment by 
the Comptroller General of the United States of the cyber 
threat outreach and education activities of the Department of 
Defense.

                         Information Operations

    Engagement with foreign audiences and nuanced understanding 
of the information environment is pivotal in countering violent 
extremists, interrupting the radicalization process, and 
identifying and countering efforts at deception and 
misinformation. As such, strategic engagement is a key element 
to success on the battlefield and an important tool to prevent 
or deter conflict before escalation. The committee continued to 
pay particular attention to the Department of Defense's 
information operations strategy and how these tools are being 
further developed and adapted to support warfighter needs in a 
changing security environment. These activities enable military 
operations and military support to diplomacy, and the committee 
conducted oversight of these critical capabilities as they 
transition from a wartime to a peacetime security posture.
    The committee held a related hearing on June 28, 2013 on 
``Past, Present, and Future Irregular Warfare Challenges: 
Private Sector Perspectives.''
    The committee included a legislative provision related to 
information operations in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, 
that would require a strategy for future information operations 
capabilities. H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions 
related to information operations, including: a strategy for 
future information operations capabilities and limitation on 
funding for the Trans-Regional Web Initiative.

         ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

                 Full Committee Hearings and Briefings

    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in 
preparation for the fiscal year 2015 budget. These hearings, 
combined with the committee's responsibility for assembling the 
annual defense authorization bill, are a central element in the 
discharge of the committee's oversight responsibilities. In 
upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, abuse, 
or mismanagement in Federal Government programs, and pursuant 
to House rule XI, clauses 2(n), (o), and (p), the committee met 
several times to conduct oversight of Department of Defense 
activities, as noted elsewhere in this report.
    On March 6, 2014, the committee received testimony from the 
Honorable Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense; and General Martin 
E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review 
the budget request for funding and authorities during fiscal 
year 2015.
    In addition to this hearing, the committee held budget 
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of 
the military departments. On March 12, 2014, the committee 
convened a hearing to receive testimony from the Honorable Ray 
Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief 
of Naval Operations; and General James F. Amos, Commandant, 
U.S. Marine Corps, on the United States Navy and Marine Corps' 
portion of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. On March 14, 
2014, the Honorable Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air 
Force; and General Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the 
U.S. Air Force, appeared before the committee to discuss the 
U.S. Air Force's portion of the fiscal year 2015 budget 
request. On March 25, 2014, the Honorable John McHugh, 
Secretary of the Army; and General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of 
Staff of the U.S. Army, testified on the budget as it related 
to the U.S. Army.
    In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily 
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, 
commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before 
the committee to discuss the security situation and posture in 
their respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began 
with testimony from General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., Commander 
of U.S. Northern Command; and General John F. Kelly, Commander 
of U.S. Southern Command, on February 26, 2014. This hearing 
was followed on March 5, 2014, by Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, 
Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; General Lloyd J. Austin III, 
Commander of U.S. Central Command; and General David M. 
Rodriguez, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, who testified on 
their commands' posture and budget requests for fiscal year 
2015. On April 2, 2014, the committee received testimony from 
Admiral Cecil D. Haney, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command; 
and General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander of U.S. Forces 
Korea. General Philip M. Breedlove, Commander of U.S European 
Command, did not testify before the committee on the posture 
and budget request for U.S. European Command due to a request 
by the Administration that he remain in Europe amidst 
aggressive actions by Russia in Europe, to specifically include 
its illegal annexation of Crimea. The committee also convened 
on March 13, 2014, to receive testimony from General Joseph 
Dunford, Commander of the International Security and Assistance 
Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on 
recent developments in Afghanistan.
    This year, the committee also convened a hearing to receive 
testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense 
priorities for the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2015, which took place on April 9, 2014.
    The Department of Defense had not submitted its fiscal year 
2015 budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 
at the time the committee marked up the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 on May 7, 2014. Upon 
receiving the fiscal year 2015 OCO request in late June 2014, 
the committee held a hearing on the request with the Honorable 
Robert O. Work, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Admiral James A. 
``Sandy'' Winnefeld, Jr., Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
and the Honorable Michael J. McCord, Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), on July 16, 2014.
    As events transpired in the Middle East, specifically 
relating to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the 
Levant (ISIL) in the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab 
Republic, the committee met several times to conduct oversight 
hearings and briefings on the threat and the Administration's 
policy and strategy to defeat ISIL. These included classified 
briefings on the security situation in Iraq on June 18, 2014, 
June 26, 2014, and July 9, 2014, with senior defense and 
intelligence community officials, and hearings on the strategy 
and campaign against ISIL with the Honorable Chuck Hagel, 
Secretary of Defense, on September 18, 2014, and the Secretary 
of Defense and General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, on November 13, 2014. The committee also 
received inputs from outside experts in a hearing on July 29, 
2014, and a roundtable discussion on September 17, 2014. 
Finally, to develop its understanding of the Syria train and 
equip authority requested by the President in September 2014, 
the committee held a classified briefing with officials from 
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State on 
September 16, 2014, and a classified intelligence-operations 
briefing on November 19, 2014.
    Additionally, the committee held a series of hearings and 
briefings in accordance with its legislative and oversight 
roles focused on the United States' ongoing military operations 
and related strategies beyond Iraq and Syria. Relating to the 
U.S. mission in Afghanistan, the committee held a classified 
intelligence-operations briefing on Afghanistan and Pakistan on 
January 14, 2014; a hearing with outside experts on ``Risks to 
Stability in Afghanistan: Politics, Security, and International 
Commitment'' on July 30, 2014; and a classified briefing on the 
situation in Afghanistan, including developments relating to 
post-2014 authorities, on December 10, 2014. The committee also 
examined the legal authorities for military operations against 
Al Qaeda in a classified briefing on June 25, 2014, and a 
hearing on the ``State of Al-Qaeda, its Affiliates, and 
Associated Groups'' with outside experts on February 4, 2014.
    Remaining mindful of emerging and evolving security 
challenges around the globe, the committee also held several 
hearings and briefings related to developments in the broader 
Middle East, Europe and Russia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific, 
as well as the Department's release of its 2014 Quadrennial 
Defense Review and its defense strategy contained therein. The 
committee has also continued to oversee developments ranging 
from the transfers of detainees to third countries, to those 
relating to the committee's ongoing defense reform initiative. 
Many of these oversight events are noted elsewhere in this 
report. Of particular note, the committee closely monitored 
developments relating to the Joint Plan of Action regarding 
Iran's nuclear program and held a hearing with outside experts 
on the ``P5+1 Negotiations over Iran's Nuclear Program and Its 
Implications for United States Defense'' on June 19, 2014. The 
committee also held several classified briefings on the 
security situation in eastern Europe, specifically the Ukraine, 
and a hearing on ``Russian Military Developments and Strategic 
Implications'' with senior defense officials on April 8, 2014. 
Lastly, the committee has also continued to oversee DOD 
activities and funding relating to the Ebola virus outbreak in 
West Africa, including convening a closed briefing with 
representatives from the Department of Defense and the 
interagency on November 18, 2014, as it works to ensure the DOD 
mission remains scoped to its unique capabilities and 
Department of Defense personnel are adequately equipped and 
protected.

                            Budget Oversight

    On March 1, 2013, the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget 
request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal 
year 2014 to the Committee on the Budget. The committee noted 
that the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request had not 
yet been received as statutorily mandated, discussing that 
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, states, ``[O]n or 
after the first Monday in January but not later than the first 
Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a 
budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal 
year.''. Therefore, the committee discussed its views of the 
current funding levels for the National Defense Budget Function 
(050) as dictated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 
112-25), as well as the possibility that full sequestration 
under this legislation will be applied to national defense.
    Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the fiscal year 2014 
funding level for discretionary spending under budget function 
050 is capped at $552.0 billion. While the committee maintained 
reservations about the adequacy of the ``BCA Cap,'' the 
Administration stated that this level of funding was sufficient 
to support the new defense strategy, which was released in 
January 2012. The new defense strategy was developed over the 
course of 8 months and reflected both the President's guidance, 
as well as the $487.0 billion in cuts to the military under the 
BCA. The efforts of the Department to implement this change in 
strategy and these funding cuts had just begun. The Deputy 
Secretary of Defense testified to the committee on February 13, 
2013, ``we are just beginning to make that big move represented 
by the $487.0 [billion] and the Gates cuts before that, the 
huge strategic adjustment from the era of Iraq and Afghanistan 
to the era that is going to define our security future. So we 
have laid in those plans, but we have to actually carry them 
out. They are challenging managerially, they are challenging 
budgetarily. They are challenging for everybody at this table 
actually to carry out, and we are just embarking on them.'' 
Based on the needs brought forward by both civilian and 
military leaders of the Department, the committee requested the 
current BCA levels be maintained as the minimum required to 
support our national defense needs.
    The committee discussed that over the last 3 years, the 
level of funding requested for defense has seen significant 
decline. In fiscal year 2013, defense spending would decrease 
by 17 percent under sequestration when compared with the level 
projected for fiscal year 2013 in the Future Years Defense 
Program (FYDP) that was submitted in February 2010. Even prior 
to sequestration, defense spending had already been reduced by 
9 percent from the plan submitted just 2 years earlier.
    The committee noted that the President and Congress had 
failed to reach an agreement to avert sequestration. The 
committee stated that it has held more hearings and briefings 
on sequestration than any other committee in Congress. Time and 
again over the last 18 months, the committee received testimony 
that the effects of sequestration will be devastating, not only 
for our Armed Forces, their family members, and the defense 
industrial base, but also for local communities and the 
economy. The committee also noted that although sequestration 
will be destructive to our national security and economy, it 
does not significantly change the drivers of national spending. 
The committee emphasized that it will continue its oversight of 
the National Defense Budget Function, preventing a hollow force 
wherever possible, despite external fiscal pressures.
    The committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in 
his views and estimates. Instead, the ranking member was joined 
by twelve other Members of the committee in submitting 
alternative views and estimates that encouraged the elimination 
of sequestration to: dispel economic uncertainty, empower 
economic recovery, enable the passage of appropriations 
legislation in regular order within a clear discretionary 
spending budget, and grant the legislative and executive 
branches of government the flexibility needed to identify and 
to implement savings in a responsible and deliberate manner. 
The ranking member's views and estimates letter also encouraged 
congressional passage of a comprehensive, long-term, deficit-
reduction plan to solve the country's fiscal challenges and to 
promote national security, economic stability, and the 
continued growth and prosperity of the United States. The 
ranking member asserted that deficit-reduction goals cannot be 
effectuated through cuts alone. Rather, the solution must 
include increased revenues and changes in mandatory spending. 
The ranking member noted, however, that, due to the likely need 
for additional cuts to discretionary spending, Congress must 
establish a manageable, long-term, discretionary spending plan 
that advances national interests. In the absence of an agreed 
comprehensive, long-term, deficit-reduction solution or a long-
term, discretionary spending plan that could be incorporated 
into such a solution, the ranking member could not advocate 
maintaining top-line allocations for the national defense 
budget function at, or above, the funding levels established by 
the BCA, as amended. In that case, further reductions to 
national defense spending might still be necessary.
    On March 25, 2014, the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget 
request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal 
year 2015 to the Committee on the Budget. The President's 
fiscal year 2015 budget requested $521.3 billion in 
discretionary budget authority for national defense. Of this 
total, $495.6 billion is for the Department of Defense, $18.0 
billion is for the Department of Energy's defense activities, 
and $7.7 billion is for other defense-related activities. The 
President's budget also includes $8.2 billion in mandatory 
budget authority. The budget submission complies with the 
limitations mandated by Public Law 112-25, as amended by the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA) for funding levels in 
fiscal year 2015.
    In addition to the base budget request, as required by 
section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the President's 
budget for fiscal year 2015 included a separate request of 
$79.4 billion for war-related expenditures in support of 
ongoing military operations in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, forward presence in other critical areas, and the 
resetting of equipment, presented again this fiscal year as 
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). However, details of this 
request will be delayed. The Department of Defense has stated 
that justification materials will be available 2-3 months after 
the post-2014 strategy in Afghanistan is determined.
    The Department of Defense's $495.6 billion base budget for 
fiscal year 2015 is presented as ``repositioning the military 
for the new strategic challenges and opportunities that will 
define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and 
a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and 
in some instances more threatening to the United States'' . In 
the aggregate, the Department's budget submission for fiscal 
year 2015 is equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 appropriation, 
$31.0 billion below the fiscal year 2014 budget request, and 
$45.2 billion or 8.4 percent below the fiscal year 2015 
estimate presented in last year's FYDP.
    The committee discussed that over the last 4 years, the 
committee has seen the level of funding requested and 
appropriated for national defense decline. Under sequestration, 
national defense spending would decrease over 19 percent in 
fiscal year 2015, when compared with the level projected for 
fiscal year 2015 in the FYDP included in the first budget 
request prepared by President Obama's administration, submitted 
in February 2010.
    The committee noted its concern with the current trend of 
funding for defense spending. Over the prior 3 years, base 
defense spending has been essentially flat, which has caused a 
loss of buying power within the Department as inflationary 
influences take effect across multiple years. If this trend 
continued, defense spending will be at sequestration levels in 
fiscal year 2016, and will be below sequestration levels 
beginning in fiscal year 2017. The committee supported a path 
to restoring national defense to pre-sequestration levels for 
fiscal year 2016 onward, urging support for adequate funding 
for national defense associated with the 2012 defense strategy.
    The committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in 
his views and estimates. Instead, the ranking member was joined 
by ten other members of the committee in submitting alternative 
views and estimates that expressed support for the President's 
fiscal year 2015 budget request, because it offered the 
Congress a solid basis for cost-effective planning and 
decision-making and because it supported current and future 
military requirements. The alternative views and estimates 
letter voiced the ranking member's call to eliminate the threat 
of sequestration to: dispel economic uncertainty, empower 
economic recovery, enable the passage of appropriations 
legislation within a clear discretionary spending budget, and 
grant the legislative and executive branches of Government the 
flexibility needed to identify and to implement savings in a 
responsible and deliberate manner. The ranking member's views 
and estimates letter once again encouraged passage of a 
comprehensive, long-term, deficit-reduction plan to solve the 
country's fiscal challenges and to promote national security, 
economic stability, and the continued growth and prosperity of 
the United States. The ranking member re-asserted that deficit-
reduction goals cannot be effectuated through cuts alone. The 
solution must include increased revenues and changes in 
mandatory spending. The ranking member stated that Congress 
must establish a manageable, long-term, discretionary spending 
plan that advances national interests on a broad front.

          ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES


    Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities

    The Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities continued its oversight of several critical areas 
of the Department of Defense, including Defense-wide and joint 
enabling activities and programs to include: Special Operations 
Forces; counter-proliferation and counterterrorism programs and 
initiatives; science and technology policy and programs; 
information technology programs; homeland defense and 
Department of Defense related consequence management programs; 
related intelligence support; and other enabling activities and 
programs such as cyber operations, strategic communications, 
and information operations. In addition, the subcommittee 
conducted oversight of intelligence policy, coordination of 
military and national intelligence programs, and Department of 
Defense elements that are part of the intelligence community.
    Subcommittee members and staff made numerous trips to 
countries impacted by terrorism, to include areas where U.S. 
forces are engaged in combat operations, in order to conduct 
oversight; to further understand the resources leveraged 
against terrorism and other emerging threats, the authorities 
applied in these efforts, and the Department of Defense's 
interaction with its interagency and international partners. 
These congressional and staff delegations were preceded by 
operational and intelligence oversight briefings to members and 
staff by senior officials from the Department of Defense, the 
Department of State, and the intelligence community and 
represented an important part of oversight conducted by the 
subcommittee.
    The subcommittee considered and reported several 
legislative provisions in H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, 
and H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The legislative 
provisions covered a range of issues within the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction including: counter-terrorism and counter-
proliferation programs and activities; U.S. Special Operations 
Forces; science and technology policy and programs, including 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; information 
technology and programs; homeland defense and consequence 
management programs; as well as intelligence policy, national 
intelligence programs, and Department of Defense elements part 
of the intelligence community. In addition, H.R. 1960, as 
passed by the House, and H.R. 3304 included: a provision that 
directed additional reporting requirements for humanitarian 
mine action to include Counter-Improvised Explosive Device 
technology; a provision to extend the authority to award prizes 
for advanced technology achievements; a provision that would 
require the Secretary of Defense to create a policy that 
governs defense intelligence priorities; a provision that 
provides new authorities to strengthen the ability of 
Department of Defense laboratories to support the continued 
development and expansion of its workforce and facilities; a 
provision to limit funding on the establishment of Regional 
Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers; a technical 
correction relating to funding for the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Special Operations Headquarters; and a provision 
to limit funding for United States Special Operations Command 
National Capital Region.
    In addition, H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 
included several other provisions within the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, including: a section that would modify the 
current oversight requirements for the undersea mobility 
acquisition program of U.S. Special Operations Command, and 
require the Secretary of the Navy to review a transition plan 
for the undersea mobility capabilities developed by the 
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command; a section that 
would modify the reporting requirements and definitions 
contained in section 407 of title 10, United States Code, 
regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled 
conventional munitions assistance and expand this definition to 
include man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS); a section 
that would prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command from 
obligating any funds available for fiscal year 2015 for the 
Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program until the Secretary 
of Defense provides a certification to the congressional 
defense committees that validates program requirements; and a 
provision requiring the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Secretary of State, to submit to Congress an annual 
report on human rights vetting and verification procedures of 
the Department of Defense; would require the Secretary of 
Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, to conduct a 
review of Department of Defense efforts regarding suicide 
prevention among members of the Special Operations Forces and 
their dependents; and a provision that directs the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct an outside review and assessment of the 
Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) program and 
suicide prevention programs for U.S. Special Operations Forces 
and U.S. Special Operations Command.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included: a directive 
requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide a copy of the 
Analysis of Alternatives report in its entirety and a briefing 
on undersea clandestine insertion mission of U.S. Special 
Operations Forces; language directing the Secretary of Defense 
to improve coordination for and to provide a briefing on the 
Tactical Assault Light Operator Suits (TALOS) project for U.S. 
Special Operations Forces; and a directive requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to brief the committee on proposed 
transfer of the United States Naval Ship Sumner from Military 
Sealift Command to U.S. Special Operations Command.
    H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 
included: a section that would modify the current oversight 
requirements for the undersea mobility acquisition program of 
U.S. Special Operations Command, and require the Secretary of 
the Navy to review a transition plan for the undersea mobility 
capabilities developed by the Commander, U.S. Special 
Operations Command; a section that would modify the reporting 
requirements and definitions contained in section 407 of title 
10, United States Code, regarding humanitarian demining 
assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions assistance and 
expand this definition to include man-portable air defense 
systems (MANPADS); a section that would prohibit U.S. Special 
Operations Command from obligating any funds available for 
fiscal year 2015 for the Aviation Foreign Internal Defense 
Program until the Secretary of Defense provides a certification 
to the congressional defense committees that validates program 
requirements; and a provision requiring the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit 
to Congress an annual report on human rights vetting and 
verification procedures of the Department of Defense; and a 
provision requiring a comprehensive review and assessment of 
the Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) program and 
suicide prevention programs for U.S. Special Operations Forces 
and U.S. Special Operations Command; a provision that would 
limit the transfer of MC-12 aircraft to U.S. Special Operations 
Command and direct a review and assessment of requirements; an 
extension of authority related to Department of Defense 
facilities for intelligence collection or special operations 
activities abroad; and rapid acquisition procedures for U.S. 
Special Operations Command.

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel


Transition Assistance

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel provided extensive 
oversight on the Department of Defense's Transition Assistance 
Program (TAP) to ensure implementation of the Veterans' 
Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act was proceeding expeditiously. The 
subcommittee held several meetings with the Department of 
Defense and the military services to monitor their 
implementation plans. The subcommittee held a hearing on April 
24, 2013, entitled ``Status of Implementation of the 
Requirements of the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act and the 
recommendations of the Presidential Veteran Employment 
Initiative Task Force for the DOD Transition Assistance 
Program: Goals, Plans, and Success (GPS)'' to discuss the 
implementation. The hearing also provided the opportunity to 
determine whether additional legislative changes were needed to 
further improve the quality of the program provided to service 
members and their families.
    The subcommittee addressed several aspects of transition, 
including expanding opportunities to gain civilian credentials 
in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, as passed by the House, as well as in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and in H.R. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 
Finally, the committee received a briefing on the preliminary 
Comptroller General's report on the implementation of the VOW 
Act, which indicated the program was progressing according to 
plan with some minor adjustments required.
    During the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee continued to address the needs of service members 
transitioning from the military. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015, would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
enhance the higher education component of the Transition 
Assistance Program (TAP) of the Department by providing more 
complete and accurate information regarding post-secondary 
education to individuals who apply for educational assistance 
to pursue a program of education at an institution of higher 
learning. In addition, H.R. 3979 would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to provide information in electronic format, such as 
military service and separation data and contact information, 
to State veterans agencies to facilitate the transition of 
service members to civilian life.

``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel continued the 
process of closely monitoring the ongoing implementation of the 
laws and policies surrounding the 2011 repeal of the law 
limiting the military service of gay men, lesbians, and 
bisexuals known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' through briefings 
from the Department of Defense on the roll out of the 
Department of Defense policies concerning the repeal of ``Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell.''

Religious Freedom

    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, contained a provision that would strengthen 
and clarify the extent of the protections for the sincerely 
held conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs of 
service member and a member's individual expression of those 
beliefs. The provision amended section 533 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) and would expand the accommodation and prohibition against 
adverse personnel action based on a member's individual 
expression of those beliefs. Furthermore, it would enforce the 
standard that would trigger disciplinary action from 
expressions of those beliefs that could have an impact on 
military readiness, unit cohesion or good order and discipline. 
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, 
contained a provision that would protect the religious freedom 
of military chaplains to close a prayer outside of a religious 
service according to the traditions, expressions and religious 
exercises of their endorsing faith group.
    On January 29, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
met to receive testimony from the Department of Defense on 
religious accommodation in the Armed Services, and on November 
19, 2014, the subcommittee also met to receive testimony from 
outside advocacy organizations on religious accommodations in 
the Armed Services.

Toxic Leadership

    The committee became concerned about toxic leadership among 
high-ranking officers in the military services after what 
appeared to be an increase in press reports of investigations 
of senior officers for behaviors that included toxic leadership 
practices. On July 24, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel met to receive a briefing on the Department of 
Defense and military services efforts to reduce toxic 
leadership.

                       Subcommittee on Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of 
military readiness, training, logistics, and maintenance 
issues; military construction, installations, and family 
housing issues; energy policy and programs of the Department of 
Defense; and civilian personnel and service contracting issues.
    On February 28, 2013, the committee met to receive 
testimony on ``Assuring the viability of the sustainment 
industrial base'' in order to understand the immediate impacts 
of a continuing resolution and sequestration on workload trends 
for depots and arsenals, forward-deployed logistics, new weapon 
system maintenance, and the Army's new Organic Industrial Base 
Strategy. On March 14, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``Is Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) appropriate 
at this time?'' The purpose of the hearing was to determine 
whether or not the Department of Defense completed an overseas 
basing assessment and to understand the rationale behind a 
possible future BRAC round.
    The committee met on April 14, 2013, to receive testimony 
on the ``Readiness of the U.S. Army.'' The subcommittee then 
met in a follow-on session to receive testimony on the 
``Readiness of the U.S. Air Force'' on April 24, 2013. On April 
26, the subcommittee also met to receive testimony on the 
``Readiness of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps in the 
context of the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request.'' 
These three hearings examined the impacts of sequestration, 
including Department of Defense civilian employee furloughs, on 
the overall readiness of the services. On August 1, 2013, the 
Subcommittees on Readiness and Seapower and Projection Forces 
held a joint hearing on ``Ensuring Navy Surface Force 
Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources,'' 
specifically how operational demands and sequestration affect 
the Navy's ability to conduct the needed maintenance for 
surface ships to achieve their expected service life in support 
of achieving the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan. On October 
2, 2013, the subcommittee received testimony on ``Resetting the 
Force for the Future: Risks of Sequestration,'' with regard to 
the materiel reset and reconstitution efforts of the U.S. Army 
and U.S. Marine Corps in light of the drawdown of U.S. Armed 
Forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
    The committee met on October 10, 2013, to receive testimony 
on ``The interpretation of H.R. 3210: Pay Our Military Act,'' 
which provided that members of the Armed Forces, the Reserve 
Components (full-time National Guard), and civilian employees 
and contractors supporting the Armed Forces received pay and 
allowances in spite of the United States Government shutdown of 
2013.
    The committee met on March 27, 2014, to receive testimony 
on ``Operation and Maintenance without OCO Funds,'' in order to 
understand when the reset and enduring requirements for funds 
that traditionally came from OCO would return to the base O&M 
accounts. On April 10, 2014, the committee received testimony 
on ``The Department of Defense's Readiness Posture.''

             Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces

    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces 
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in 
the President's budget requests for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
    In addition, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings 
on the following topics: February 26, 2013, The Future of 
Seapower; April 24, 2013, Oversight of U.S. Naval and U.S. Air 
Force Acquisition Programs in the Fiscal Year 2014 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request; July 25, 2013, 
Acquisition and Development Challenges Associated with the 
Littoral Combat Ship; September 12, 2013, Undersea Warfare 
Capabilities and Challenges; October 10, 2013, Department of 
Defense Development and Integration of Air/Sea Battle Strategy, 
Governance and Policy into the Services' Annual Program, 
Planning, Budgeting and Execution Process; October 23, 2013, an 
Independent assessment of the Navy's 30-year Shipbuilding Plan; 
December 11, 2013, U.S. Asia-Pacific Strategic Considerations 
related to PLA Naval Forces Modernization. The subcommittee on 
Seapower and Projection Forces also held a joint hearing with 
the Subcommittee on Readiness on August 1, 2013, Ensuring Navy 
Surface Force Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources.
    Additional hearings were: January 14, 2014, People's 
Republic of China Maritime Disputes; January 28, 2014, Hearing 
on the People's Republic of China's Counterspace Program and 
the Implications for U.S. National Security; February 27, 2014, 
Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities to Support the Asia 
Pacific Rebalance; March 12, 2014, Independent Assessments of 
the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection 
Forces; March 26, 2014, Independent Assessments of the Fiscal 
Year 2015 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces; 
April 2, 2014, Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs 
and Capabilities related to the 2015 President's Budget 
Request; July 10, 2014, Cruiser and Destroyer Modernization and 
Large Surface Combatant Force Structure Assessment; July 16, 
2014, Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and 
Strike (UCLASS) Requirements Assessment; July 25, 2014, 
Amphibious Fleet Requirements; July 30, 2014, Logistics and 
Sealift Force Requirements and Force Structure Assessment; and 
December 2, 2014, the Role of Maritime and Air Power in DOD's 
Third Offset Strategy.
    In addition to hearings, the subcommittee conducted 
numerous briefings on the following topics: February 14, 2013, 
Underpinning of the 30-year Shipbuilding Plan; April 10, 2013, 
Seapower and Projection Forces Strategy, Tactics and Challenges 
Associated with Conducting Full-Spectrum Maritime and Aerospace 
Operations in an Anti-Access/Area Denial Threat Environment; 
April 17, 2013, Requirements, Cost, Schedule, Acquisition 
Strategy and Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request regarding the new 
Long-Range Strike Bomber; October 2, 2013, Undersea 
Conventional Strike; October 29, 2013, Unmanned Carrier-based 
Aircraft Development Activities of the U.S. Navy; February 4, 
2014, Air Force and Naval Aircraft of the People's Republic of 
China Liberation Army: Order of Battle and Capabilities; and 
June 10, 2014, Integration of Advanced Weapons on Large Surface 
Combatants.

                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held three hearings 
regarding the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request. On 
April 25, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on the Fiscal 
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for 
National Security Space Activities. On May 8, 2013, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense 
Programs. On May 9, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing 
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs.
    In addition to budget request hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held additional oversight hearings. On 
February 28, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on Nuclear 
Security: Actions, Accountability, and Reform. On March 19, 
2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``The U.S. Nuclear 
Deterrent: What Are the Requirements for A Strong Deterrent In 
an Era of Defense Sequester?'' On October 29, 2013, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on Nuclear Weapons Modernization 
Programs: Military, Technical, and Political Requirements for 
the B61 Life Extension Program and Future Stockpile Strategy.
    The subcommittee also held numerous briefings. On February 
5, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing 
regarding foreign nuclear weapons programs. On February 13, 
2013, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on 
the long range missile threat to the United States. On March 5, 
2013, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing 
regarding National Security Space. On April 26, 2013, the 
subcommittee met to receive a missile defense briefing from 
Admiral Syring, Director, Missile Defense Agency. On July 18, 
2013, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on 
the President's Nuclear Weapons Employment Guidance and Russian 
Arms Control Violations. On July 31, 2013, the subcommittee met 
to receive a classified briefing on Commercial Satellite 
Services. On September 10, 2013, the subcommittee met to 
receive a classified briefing on the annual assessments of the 
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. On September 18, 2013, the 
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on military 
requirements for conventional prompt global strike capability.
    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held three hearings 
regarding the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request. On 
March 25, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on the Fiscal 
Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for 
Missile Defense Programs. On April 3, 2014, the subcommittee 
held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space 
Activities. On April 8, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing 
on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Atomic Energy 
Defense Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs.
    In addition to oversight of the President's fiscal year 
2015 budget request, the subcommittee held several oversight 
hearings. On March 26, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on 
the ``Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on the Governance of 
the Nuclear Security Enterprise.'' On July 17, 2014, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on ``Russian Violations of the INF 
Treaty: After Detection--What?'' On July 23, 2014, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on ``Adapting U.S. Missile Defense 
for Future Threats: Russia, China and Modernizing the NMD 
Act.'' And, on December 10, 2014, the subcommittee held a 
hearing on ``Russian Arms Control Cheating and the 
Administration's Responses.''
    Further, the subcommittee held numerous briefings with the 
Administration as part of its oversight of strategic forces 
programs and related policy matters: on January 15, 2014, a 
briefing on ``Cruise Missile Threats to the United States and 
Homeland Defense Options and Plans''; on February 11, 2014, a 
briefing on ``Pakistan: Strategic Forces Developments''; an 
``Arms Control Compliance Briefing'' on March 5, 2014; on June 
26, 2014, a briefing on ``Russian Strategic Forces Programs''; 
on July 9, 2014, a briefing on ``Missile Defense Classified 
Programs''; a September 17, 2014 briefing on ``Russian Arms 
Control Violations: National Security in the Face of Russian 
Violation of the INF Treaty and Other Violations''; on 
September 18, 2014, a briefing on the ``Report on Stockpile 
Assessments--The Health of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons 
Stockpile''; on November 18, 2014, a briefing on ``Iran and 
Implications of Sanctions Relief''; and, on December 4, 2014, a 
briefing on ``Implications to United States Strategic 
Capabilities of Foreign Capability Development.''

              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided 
oversight of all Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition 
programs providing tactical aircraft and missile; armor and 
ground vehicle; munitions; rotorcraft; individual equipment to 
include tactical networks and radios; counter improvised 
explosive device (IED) equipment; intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance platforms to include unmanned aerial 
systems, and associated support equipment, including National 
Guard and Reserve equipment programs. The Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces also provided oversight on policy, 
such as threats and force structure requirements, as 
appropriate within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This would 
include current or future acquisition programs that relate to 
gaps in the capabilities required to execute current national 
military strategies, as well as the allocation of acquisition 
resources. This would also include military service specific 
acquisition policies as long as there is a nexus to the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces also raised concerns over the impact of 
sequestration on acquisition programs, in particular the 
impacts to all levels of the industrial base.
    The subcommittee conducted six oversight hearings during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2014 budget request, 
including the following: February 28, 2013: Impacts of a 
Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Acquisition, 
Programming, and the Industrial Base; March 19, 2013: 
Equipping, Modernizing, and Sustaining the National Guard, Army 
Reserve, and Air Force Reserve as an Operational Force in a 
Time of Budget Uncertainty; April 11, 2013: Equipping the 
Individual Soldier and Marine: Current and Future Year 
Acquisition and Modernization Strategies and the Fiscal Year 
2014 Budget Request; April 17, 2013: Fiscal Year 2014 Navy, 
Marine Corps, and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs; April 23, 
2013: Post Iraq and Afghanistan: Current and Future Roles for 
Unmanned Aerial Systems and the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget 
request; April 26, 2013: Fiscal Year 2014 Army Modernization 
Programs; April 4, 2014: Fiscal Year 2015 Navy, Marine Corps, 
Air Force Combat Aviation Programs; April 2, 2014: Fiscal Year 
2015 Ground Modernization Programs.
    In addition to hearings, the subcommittee held various 
briefings and events to conduct oversight including classified 
briefings: July 23, 2013: Emerging Threats to Air Superiority 
and Contribution of 5th Generation Capability; August 1, 2013: 
Global IED Threat Assessment with Emphasis on the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan; September 18, 2013: Current and Future 
Threats to Ground Forces and the Critical Need to Sustain 
Modernization Efforts; October 9, 2013: Program Updates on Army 
and Marine Corps Body Armor, Combat Helmets, and Small Arms 
Programs; March 5, 2014: Update on Current and Future Counter-
IED Initiatives and the Joint IED Defeat Organization's 
Perspective on the recent DOD Report relating to an NSA 
contractor; March 13, 2014: Air Force Analysis to Support the 
Fiscal Year 2015 President's Budget; and July 16, 2014: 
Department of Defense Munitions--Issues and Challenges.
    The subcommittee also held unclassified briefings on 
February 14, 2013: Joint Strike Fighter 101; January 14, 2014: 
Army Total Force Structure; February 26, 2014: Tactical Air and 
Land Defense Industrial Base--Challenges and Opportunities; 
March 27, 2014: Department of Defense Munitions--Issues and 
Challenges; April 4, 2014: Tactical Air and Land Defense 
Industrial Base--Challenges and Opportunities; and July 30, 
2014: The Army's Tactical Network: Issues and Challenges.
    Lastly, the subcommittee met informally to gather 
information on the following topics: February 13, 2013: 
Adversary Fifth Generation Threats and the Value of Stealth; 
March 12, 2013: Acquisition 101 by the Government 
Accountability Office; and February 5, 2014: NATO 101: Issues 
and Challenges for NATO Tactical Air and Land Forces.
    The subcommittee also held a field hearing on April 23, 
2013: Post Iraq and Afghanistan: Current and Future Roles for 
Unmanned Aerial Systems and the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 
in Dayton, Ohio; and in December held an open Panel Discussion 
at Fort Rucker, Alabama on ``The State of Army Aviation and the 
Effects of Sequester on Aviation Force Structure and 
Modernization.''
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
23, 2013, and on May 7, 2014 that was included in H.R. 1960, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
passed by the House, and H.R. 4435, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, 
respectively. The legislation in both bills covered a range of 
issues, including authorization of appropriations for 
procurement programs and research, development, test and 
evaluation programs for the Department of the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, and Reserve Components.
    Of note, the subcommittee recommended in H.R. 1960, as 
passed by the House, an additional $400.0 million for 
critically needed National Guard and Reserve Component 
equipment. H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, would support the legislation included in 
H.R. 1960, and also would direct an additional $400.0 million 
to adequately resource under-funded critical dual-use equipment 
requirements for the National Guard and Reserve Component. 
Similar to the legislative efforts in H.R. 3304, H.R. 3979, the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, authorized an 
additional $1.25 billion for National Guard and Reserve 
Component equipment modernization, based on the recommendation 
from the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was 
reestablished by the 113th Congress to conduct studies and 
investigations as directed by the chairman and ranking member 
of the Committee on Armed Services after coordination with the 
chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations. The subcommittee undertakes comprehensive, 
in-depth oversight activities of major issues and makes 
recommendations to the committee for consideration and 
potential legislative action.

Afghanistan Oversight

    The subcommittee convened two hearings and one briefing in 
connection with its continued oversight efforts of U.S. 
progress in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
    To focus attention on the risks Afghan women face as U.S. 
troops withdraw, the subcommittee held two hearings on the 
challenges for securing the gains Afghan women have made in 
education, security, rights and opportunities during the last 
decade. On April 25, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``Transitioning to Afghan Security Lead: Protecting 
Afghan Women?'' Witnesses were: Mr. David Sedney, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghan, Pakistan, and 
Central Asia; Major General Michael Shields, USA, Director of 
the Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, Joint Chiefs of 
Staff; Ms. Stephanie Sanok, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, 
International Security Program, Center for Strategic and 
International Studies; and Ms. Clare Lockhart, Co-Founder and 
Director, Institute for State Effectiveness. On October 29, 
2013, the subcommittee held a second hearing entitled ``Report 
from SIGAR: Challenges to Securing Afghan Women's Gains in a 
Post-2014 Environment.'' Witnesses were: Mr. John Sopko, 
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Dr. 
Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, 
Congressional Research Services; and Ms. Michelle Barsa, Senior 
Manager for Policy, Inclusive Security Action.
    The subcommittee continued its oversight into Afghanistan 
by focusing on reconstruction to ensure that appropriate 
accountability measures are taken. On July 31, 2013, the 
subcommittee received a briefing on recent audits of U.S.-
funded reconstruction projects from Mr. John Sopko, Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Mr. Gene 
Aloise, Deputy Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction; Ms. Elizabeth Field, Assistant Inspector 
General for Audits and Inspections; Ms. Sharon Woods, Deputy 
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations; and Ms. Monica 
J. Brym, Director of Special Projects.

Levels of military, contractor, and civilian staffing at the Office of 
        the Secretary of Defense

    In March 2013, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and 
Ranking Minority Member Adam Smith directed the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations to conduct a study of how 
military, civilian and contractor personnel are utilized in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) as part of its 
continued oversight of the organization and management of the 
Department of Defense. Specifically, the subcommittee was 
tasked to identify: the extent to which military personnel hold 
positions in OSD that alternatively could be filled by civilian 
or contractor personnel; the historical reasons and current 
justifications for assigning military personnel to such 
positions; the feasibility and advisability of eliminating some 
of those positions held by military personnel or filling them 
with military of contractor personnel; potential 
recommendations for legislative changes that could be 
incorporated into the fiscal year 2015 national defense 
authorization bill; and the extent to which the manpower 
requirements are comparable to other staffs in the Department 
of Defense so that findings and recommendations could be more 
broadly applied.
    In conducting this study, staff received briefings from the 
Department of Defense and reviewed hundreds of pages of studies 
on OSD's previous efforts to identify or reduce its staffing 
levels. In addition, subcommittee Members convened a briefing 
and issued a report on its findings.
    The subcommittee's staff report concluded that despite 
consistent and recurring attention by OSD, historical efforts 
to cut the number of personnel have not resulted in overall 
reductions in the numbers of civilians or contractors assigned 
to the office. In addition, OSD faces challenges implementing 
the current round of reductions as directed by the Secretary of 
Defense. Until the Department can provide an accurate 
accounting of the number of civilian, military and contracted 
personnel supporting it and their associated costs, it is not 
clear how the Department will be able to execute the necessary 
task of reducing and rightsizing its staff.

Quadrennial Defense Review

    On February 26, 2013, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to receive information about the 
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) planning process underway 
at the Department of Defense. The committee received 
recommendations from outside experts on the issues that should 
be considered and the scope of the Department's current review. 
Hearing witnesses were: Mr. Shawn Brimley, Vice President and 
Director of Studies, Center for a New American Security; Mr. 
Jim Thomas, Vice President and Director of Studies, Center for 
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Dr. Colin Dueck, 
Associate Professor, Department of Public and International 
Affairs, George Mason University.
    On March 5, 2014, the subcommittee conducted a closed 
briefing with former U.S. Government expert witnesses to 
receive information about their perspectives on the planning, 
execution, findings and recommendations of the 2014 QDR which 
had been conducted by the Department of Defense. The committee 
received recommendations from these outside experts on the 
issues that should be considered inherent to the committee's 
oversight of the planning, programming, budgeting, and 
execution (PPBE) of the Department related to the national 
defense strategy. Briefing witnesses were: Ms. Michele 
Flournoy, Senior Advisor at The Boston Consulting Group; U.S. 
Marine Corps General (ret.) James M. Mattis, Visiting Fellow at 
the Hoover Institution; and, Dr. Catherine Dale, Specialist in 
International Security at the Congressional Research Service.
    This work supplemented other activities at the full 
committee.

Department of Defense Section 1033 Surplus Property Program in Support 
        of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies

    On November 13, 2014, the subcommittee conducted a hearing 
with Department of Defense and outside expert witnesses titled, 
``The Department of Defense Excess Property Program in Support 
of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies: An Overview of Department of 
Defense Authorities, Roles, Responsibilities, and 
Implementation of Section 1033 of the 1997 National Defense 
Authorization Act.'' The purpose of the hearing was to receive 
testimony about the administration, oversight, and 
accountability mechanisms for the Department of Defense program 
that provides excess property to selected state and local law 
enforcement agencies. The committee received testimony from two 
panels. Panel one was comprised of Vice Admiral Mark D. 
Harnitchek, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and 
Mr. Alan F. Estevez, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense, Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics. Panel two was 
comprised of Mr. Jim Bueermann, President, Police Foundation, 
and Mr. Mark Lomax, Executive Director, National Tactical 
Officers Association.

Personnel Security Clearance Process Reform Efforts

    In July 2014, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon directed 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to report to 
the vice chairman of the committee about the security clearance 
background investigation and adjudication processes as they 
apply to the Department of Defense, as part of the committee's 
broader reform effort. Specifically, the subcommittee was 
tasked to summarize the various governmental and non-
governmental assessments of the existing process, review 
internal and external proposals for improving the process, 
evaluate the effectiveness of these various reforms planned or 
underway and to suggest which, if any, of these proposals the 
committee should consider further.
    In conducting this study, staff reviewed hundreds of pages 
of documents including governmental and non-governmental 
reports, analyses, and assessments of existing processes and 
internal and external proposals for improvements. Subcommittee 
staff also reviewed and analyzed applicable Executive Orders, 
Department of Defense directives, and details of planned 
efforts to address reform of the security clearance process. In 
addition, committee staff met with and was briefed by 
representatives from the Department.
    The subcommittee's staff report summarized the ongoing 
efforts of the Department to improve the re-investigation and 
adjudication process. This includes, among other steps, 
exploring the potential for automated continuous evaluation and 
the considering reducing the number of individuals with access 
to classified information. In addition, the study noted that 
the Department had various reports set for completion in coming 
months that may provide a clearer picture of future plans for 
improving the process as they apply to the Department of 
Defense.

Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund

     On June 24, 2014, the subcommittee conducted a hearing 
with Government and outside witnesses titled ``Filipino 
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund: Examining the Department of 
Defense and Interagency Process for Verifying Eligibility.'' 
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony about the 
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, including how it 
had performed to date, how the eligibility verification process 
had operated, and how it had changed over time.
    The committee received testimony from two panels. Panel one 
was comprised of: Brigadier General David K. ``Mac'' MacEwan, 
the 59th Adjutant General of the U.S. Army; Mr. Brad Flohr, 
Senior Advisor for Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and, Mr. 
Scott Levins, Director of the National Personnel Records 
Center, National Archives and Records Administration. Panel two 
was comprised of: Mr. Celesdino Almeda, Filipino Veterans 
Equity Compensation Fund Claimant; Mr. Jesse Baltazar, Filipino 
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund Claimant; and, Mr. Eric 
Lachica, Executive Director, American Coalition for Filipino 
Veterans, Inc.

Taliban Five Transfer

    On July 17, 2014, Chairman McKeon directed the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations to conduct an investigation of 
the rationale for the May 2014 transfer of five Taliban 
detainees from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), 
the process by which the transfer decision was made, the 
national security implications of the transfer, and related 
topics. The subcommittee has since conducted bipartisan 
transcribed interviews of nine senior Department officials 
involved in or knowledgeable of the transfer and related 
events. The subcommittee also received 2,750 pages of 
classified and unclassified documents from the Department of 
Defense and other agencies, conducted a staff oversight trip to 
Qatar, and facilitated a Congressional Delegation to GTMO. 
Although Chairman McKeon intended for the investigation to be 
completed by December 9, 2014, he subsequently extended the 
subcommittee's inquiry to allow time for additional materials 
to be gathered and assessed.

Department of Defense Response to the Attack on the Diplomatic 
        Facilities in Benghazi, Libya

    In February 2014, the committee released a majority interim 
report entitled ``Benghazi Investigation Update,'' expressing 
the views of Chairman McKeon, Vice Chairman Mac Thornberry, 
Rep. Martha Roby (who was the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations until December 2013), and the five 
majority members of that subcommittee. The report assessed the 
Department of Defense's response to the attack, preparations 
the U.S. military made for the possibility of an attack, and 
the arrangements that were subsequently put into place to 
minimize the possibility of a similar recurrence. The report 
highlighted six findings.
    The February report also identified several topics for 
further investigation. Accordingly, Chairman McKeon directed 
staff to conduct nine classified transcribed interviews with 
military officers who were in Libya during the attack or were 
involved in assessing events and shaping the military's 
response. These interviews were conducted in conjunction with 
staff from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
    Committee staff interviewed individuals at every level of 
command: an Army lieutenant colonel who was the Director of 
Current Operations at Special Operations Command-Africa 
(SOCAFRICA); in addition to Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Gibson, 
Team Libya, Embassy Tripoli; Lieutenant Colonel Keith Phillips, 
Defense Attachee, Embassy Tripoli; Lieutenant Colonel Greg 
Arndt, Director of the Office of Security Cooperation, Embassy 
Tripoli; Colonel George Bristol, Commander of Joint Task Force-
Trans Sahara; Rear Admiral Brian Losey, Commander, SOCAFRICA; 
Brigadier General Scott Zobrist, commander, 31st Fighter Wing, 
Aviano Air Base, Italy; Rear Admiral Richard Landolt, Deputy 
Commander for Operations, United States Africa Command 
(AFRICOM); Vice Admiral Charles Leidig, Deputy Commander, 
AFRICOM; and General Carter Ham, Commander, AFRICOM. In sum, 
these interviews comprised over 30 hours and 1100 pages of 
transcripts. Unclassified redacted versions of these 
transcripts were later released to the public.
    Pursuant to requirements of the House of Representatives, 
committee records and materials held in connection with this 
investigation were transmitted to the Select Committee on the 
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, 
Libya, established on May 8, 2014, pursuant to H. Res. 567.
                              PUBLICATIONS

                             HOUSE REPORTS


------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Report Number          Date Filed        Bill Number        Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
113-102..........  June 7, 2013.........  H.R. 1960....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2014.
113-102 Part 2...  June 11, 2013........  H.R. 1960....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2014.
113-309..........  December 27, 2013....  N/A..........  First Annual
                                                          Report on the
                                                          Activities of
                                                          the Committee
                                                          on Armed
                                                          Services for
                                                          the 113th
                                                          Congress.
113-446..........  May 13, 2014.........  H.R. 4435....  Howard P.
                                                          ``Buck''
                                                          McKeon
                                                          National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2015.
113-446 Part 2...  May 19, 2014.........  H.R. 4435....  Howard P.
                                                          ``Buck''
                                                          McKeon
                                                          National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2015.
113-547..........  July 22, 2014........  H. Res. 649..  Directing the
                                                          Secretary of
                                                          Defense to
                                                          transmit to
                                                          the House of
                                                          Representative
                                                          s copies of
                                                          any emails in
                                                          the possession
                                                          of the
                                                          Department of
                                                          Defense or the
                                                          National
                                                          Security
                                                          Agency that
                                                          were
                                                          transmitted to
                                                          or from the
                                                          email
                                                          account(s) of
                                                          former
                                                          Internal
                                                          Revenue
                                                          Service Exempt
                                                          Organizations
                                                          Division
                                                          Director Lois
                                                          Lerner between
                                                          January 2009
                                                          and April
                                                          2011.
113-569..........  July 31, 2014........  H. Res. 644..  Condemning and
                                                          disapproving
                                                          of the Obama
                                                          administration
                                                          's failure to
                                                          comply with
                                                          the lawful
                                                          statutory
                                                          requirement to
                                                          notify
                                                          Congress
                                                          before
                                                          releasing
                                                          individuals
                                                          detained at
                                                          United States
                                                          Naval Station,
                                                          Guantanamo
                                                          Bay, Cuba, and
                                                          expressing
                                                          national
                                                          security
                                                          concerns over
                                                          the release of
                                                          five Taliban
                                                          leaders and
                                                          the
                                                          repercussions
                                                          of negotiating
                                                          with
                                                          terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE PRINTS

    Committee Print No. 1--Rules of the Committee on Armed 
Services, House of Representatives of the United States, 113th 
Congress 2013-2014, adopted January 15, 2013.
    Committee Print No. 2--National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014. Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory 
Statement to accompany H.R. 3304 (Public Law 113-66). December 
2013.
    Committee Print No. 3--A Ceremony Unveiling the Portrait of 
the Honorable Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon. September 18, 2014.

                         PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

    H.A.S.C. 113-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee 
Organization. Jan. 15, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-2--Full Committee hearing on A Review of 
Sexual Misconduct by Basic Training Instructors at Lackland Air 
Force Base. Jan. 23, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-3--Full Committee hearing on The Impacts of a 
Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Defense. Feb. 13, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-4--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Perspectives on the Future 
National Security Environment: Technological, Geopolitical, and 
Economic Trends Affecting the Defense Strategic Guidance. Feb. 
13, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-5--Full Committee hearing on Framework for 
Building Partnership Capacity Programs and Authorities to Meet 
21st Century Challenges. Feb. 14, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-6--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on The Quadrennial Defense Review: 
Process, Policy, and Perspectives. Feb. 26, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-7--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on The Future of Seapower. Feb. 26, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-8--Full Committee hearing on Transition in 
Afghanistan: Views of Outside Experts. Feb. 27, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-9--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on The Impact of the Current Budget-Constrained Environment on 
Military End Strength. Feb. 27, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-10--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on The Role of Intelligence in 
the Department of Defense. Feb. 27, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-11--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Assuring Viability of the Sustainment Industrial Base. Feb. 28, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-12--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and 
Sequestration on Acquisition, Programming, and the Industrial 
Base. Feb. 28, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-13--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Nuclear Security: Actions, Accountability and Reform. Feb. 
28, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-14--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. 
Strategic Command and U.S. Pacific Command. Mar. 5, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-15--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. Central 
Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. 
Transportation Command. Mar. 6, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-16--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration, and 
Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets on Military 
Personnel and Family Related Programs. Mar. 13, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-17--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Information Technology and 
Cyber Operations: Modernization and Policy Issues to Support 
the Future Force. Mar. 13, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-18--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Is 
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Appropriate at this Time? 
Mar. 14, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-19--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. 
European Command and U.S. Africa Command. Mar. 15, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-20--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Equipping, Modernizing, and Sustaining the 
National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve as an 
Operational Force in a Time of Budget Uncertainty. Mar. 19, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-21--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The U.S. Nuclear Deterrent: What are the Requirements for a 
Strong Deterrent in an Era of Defense Sequester? Mar. 19, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-22--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. 
Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command. Mar. 20, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-23--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Update on Military Suicide Prevention Programs. Mar. 21, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-24--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Mental Health Research. Apr. 10, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-25--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. Apr. 11, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-26--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Equipping the Individual Soldier and Marine: Current and Future 
Year Acquisition and Modernization Strategies and the Fiscal 
Year 2014 Budget Request. Apr. 11, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-27--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. Apr. 12, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-28--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. Apr. 16, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-29--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The 
Readiness Posture of the U.S. Army. Apr. 16, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-30--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Department 
of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology Programs. Apr. 16, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-31--Full Committee hearing on Recent 
Developments in Afghanistan. Apr. 17, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-32--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2014 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat 
Aviation Programs. Apr. 17, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-33--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for U.S. Special 
Operations Command and U.S. Special Operations Forces. Apr. 17, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-34--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Post 
Iraq and Afghanistan: Current and Future Roles for UAS and the 
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request. Apr. 23, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-35--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Oversight of U.S. Naval and U.S. Air Force Acquisition Programs 
in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request. Apr. 24, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-36--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The 
Readiness Posture of the U.S. Air Force. Apr. 24, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-37--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Status of Implementation of the Requirements of the VOW Act 
and the Recommendations of the Presidential Veterans Employment 
Initiative Task Force for the DOD Transition Assistance 
Program--Goals, Plans, and Success (GPS). Apr. 24, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-38--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. Apr. 25, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-39--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Transitioning to Afghan Security 
Lead: Protecting Afghan Women? Apr. 25, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-40--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
National Security Space Activities. Apr. 25, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-41--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The 
Readiness Posture of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. 
Apr. 26, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-42--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2014 Army Modernization Programs. Apr. 26, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-43--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--National Defense Priorities 
from Members for the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense 
Authorization Act. May 8, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-44--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Missile Defense Programs. May 8, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-45--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2014 
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities and Nuclear 
Forces Programs. May 9, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-46--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Past, Present, and Future 
Irregular Warfare Challenges: Private Sector Perspectives. June 
28, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-47--Full Committee hearing on DOD and VA 
Collaboration to Assist Servicemembers Returning to Civilian 
Life (joint with House Committee on Veterans' Affairs). July 
10, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-48--Full Committee hearing on The Security 
Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic--Implications for U.S. 
National Security and U.S. Policy Options. July 17, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-49--Full Committee hearing on Rebalancing to 
the Asia-Pacific Region and Implications for U.S. National 
Security. July 24, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-50--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Women in Service Reviews. July 24, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-51--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Acquisition and Development Challenges 
Associated with the Littoral Combat Ship. July 25, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-52--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Department of Defense's Challenges in Accounting for Missing 
Persons from Past Conflicts. Aug. 1, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-53--Full Committee hearing on Initial 
Conclusions Formed by the Defense Strategic Choices and 
Management Review. Aug. 1, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-54--Subcommittees on Readiness and Seapower 
and Projection Forces joint hearing on Ensuring Navy Surface 
Force Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources. Aug. 1, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-55--Full Committee hearing on Proposed 
Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria. Sept. 10, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-56--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Undersea Warfare Capabilities and Challenges. 
Sept. 12, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-57--Full Committee hearing on Planning for 
Sequestration in Fiscal Year 2014 and Perspectives of the 
Military Services on the Strategic Choices and Management 
Review. Sept. 18, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-58--Full Committee hearing on The U.S. 
Presence in Afghanistan Post-2014: Views of Outside Experts. 
Sept. 19, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-59--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on The Defense Department's Posture for 
September 11, 2013: What are the Lessons of Benghazi? Sept. 19, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-60--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Resetting the Force for the Future: Risks of Sequestration. 
Oct. 2, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-61--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The 
Interpretation of H.R. 3210: Pay Our Military Act. Oct. 10, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-62--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Department of Defense Development and 
Integration of Air-Sea Battle Strategy, Governance and Policy 
into the Services' Annual Program, Planning, Budgeting and 
Execution (PPBE) Process. Oct. 10, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-63--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Biodefense: Worldwide 
Threats and Countermeasure Efforts for the Department of 
Defense. Oct. 11, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-64--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on An Independent Assessment of the Navy's 30-
Year Shipbuilding Plan. Oct. 23, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-65--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and 
Sequestration on Acquisition and Modernization. Oct. 23, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-66--Full Committee hearing on Twenty-Five 
Years of Acquisition Reform: Where Do We Go From Here? Oct. 29, 
2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-67--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Report from SIGAR: Challenges to 
Securing Afghan Women's Gains in a Post-2014 Environment. Oct. 
29, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-68--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Nuclear Weapons Modernization Programs: Military, Technical, 
and Political Requirements for the B61 Life Extension Program 
and Future Stockpile Strategy. Oct. 29, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-69--Full Committee hearing on 2013 Report to 
Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission. Nov. 20, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-70--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Resale Programs Overview. Nov. 20, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-71--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on U.S. Asia-Pacific Strategic Considerations 
Related to People's Liberation Army Naval Forces Modernization. 
Dec. 11, 2013.
    H.A.S.C. 113-72--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Maritime Sovereignty in the East and South 
China Seas (joint with Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs). Jan. 14, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-73--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Future Recruiting Challenges in the Fiscally Constrained 
Environment. Jan. 16, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-74--Full Committee hearing on Rebalancing to 
the Asia-Pacific Region: Examining Its Implementation. Jan. 28, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-75--Subcommittees on Strategic Forces and 
Seapower and Projection Forces joint hearing on People's 
Republic of China's Counterspace Program and the Implications 
for U.S. National Security. Jan. 28, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-76--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services. Jan. 29, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-77--Full Committee hearing on The State of Al 
Qaeda, Its Affiliates, and Associated Groups: View from Outside 
Experts. Feb. 4, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-78--Full Committee hearing on United States 
Security Policy and Defense Posture in the Middle East. Feb. 
11, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-79--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. 
Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command. Feb. 26, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-80--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Defense Health Agency. Feb. 26, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-81--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. Special 
Operations Command and U.S. Transportation Command. Feb. 27, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-82--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities 
to Support the Asia-Pacific Rebalance. Feb. 27, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-83--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Requests from the U.S. Pacific 
Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Africa Command. Mar. 5, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-84--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of 
Defense. Mar. 6, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-85--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the 
Navy. Mar. 12, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-86--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Independent Assessments of the Fiscal Year 
2015 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces. Mar. 
12, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-87--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Information Technology and 
Cyber Operations: Modernization and Policy Issues in a Changing 
National Security Environment. Mar. 12, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-88--Full Committee hearing on Recent 
Developments in Afghanistan. Mar. 13, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-89--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. Special 
Operations Command and the Posture of the U.S. Special 
Operations Forces. Mar. 13, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-90--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the 
Air Force. Mar. 14, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-91--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the 
Army. Mar. 25, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-92--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Personnel Overview. Mar. 25, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-93--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 
Missile Defense Hearing. Mar. 25, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-94--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on the Governance of 
the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Mar. 26, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-95--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2015 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat 
Aviation Programs. Mar. 26, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-96--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Department of Defense (DOD) 
Fiscal Year 2015 Science and Technology Programs: Pursuing 
Technology Superiority in a Changing Security Environment. Mar. 
26, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-97--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for 
Seapower and Projection Forces. Mar. 26, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-98--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Operation and Maintenance Without OCO Funds: What Now? Mar. 27, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-99--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Requests from U.S. Forces Korea 
and U.S. Strategic Command. Apr. 2, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-100--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2015 Ground Force Modernization Programs. Apr. 2, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-101--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs 
and Capabilities Related to the 2015 President's Budget 
Request. Apr. 2, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-102--Full Committee hearing on the 2014 
Quadrennial Defense Review. Apr. 3, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-103--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for National 
Security Space Activities. Apr. 3, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-104--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Intelligence 
Activities. Apr. 4, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-105--Full Committee hearing on Russian 
Military Developments and Strategic Implications. Apr. 8, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-106--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request 
for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Chemical 
Biological Defense Program: Combating Weapons of Mass 
Destruction in a Changing Global Environment. Apr. 8, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-107--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 
Atomic Energy Defense and Nuclear Forces. Apr. 8, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-108--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--National Defense Priorities 
from Members for the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense 
Authorization Act. Apr. 9, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-109--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Beneficiary and Advocacy Overview of the Fiscal Year 
2015 President's Budget. Apr. 9, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-110--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Department of 
Defense's Readiness Posture. Apr. 10, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-111--Full Committee hearing on The May 31, 
2014 Transfer of Five Senior Taliban Detainees. June 11, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-112--Full Committee hearing on P5+1 
Negotiations over Iran's Nuclear Program and Its Implications 
for United States Defense. June 19, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-113--Full Committee hearing on Case Studies in 
DOD Acquisition: Finding What Works. June 24, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-114--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation 
Fund: Examining the Department of Defense and Interagency 
Process for Verifying Eligibility. June 24, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-115--Full Committee hearing on Defense Reform: 
Empowering Success in Acquisition. July 10, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-116--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Cruiser and Destroyer Modernization and Large 
Surface Combatant Force Structure Assessment. July 10, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-117--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Government Accountability Office Review of the 
Prisoner of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) Community and the 
Restructuring of These Agencies as Proposed by the Department 
of Defense. July 15, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-118--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 
2015 Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request. July 16, 
2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-119--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne 
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Requirements Assessment. July 
16, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-120--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Russian Violations of the INF Treaty: After Detection--What? 
July 17, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-121--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Adapting U.S. Missile Defense for Future Threats: Russia, 
China and Modernizing the National Missile Defense (NMD) Act. 
July 23, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-122--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Amphibious Fleet Requirements. July 25, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-123--Full Committee hearing on Security 
Situation in Iraq and Syria: U.S. Policy Options and 
Implications for the Region. July 29, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-124--Full Committee hearing on Risks to 
Stability in Afghanistan: Politics, Security, and International 
Commitment. July 30, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-125--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Logistics and Sealift Force Requirements and 
Force Structure Assessment. July 30, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-126--Full Committee hearing on The 
Administration's Strategy for the Islamic State in Iraq and the 
Levant (ISIL). Sept. 18, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-127--Full Committee hearing on The 
Administration's Strategy and Military Campaign against Islamic 
State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Nov. 13, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-128--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on The Department of Defense Excess 
Property Program in Support of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies: 
An Overview of DOD Authorities, Roles, Responsibilities, and 
Implementation of Section 1033 of the 1997 National Defense 
Authorization Act. Nov. 13, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-129--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services. Nov. 
19, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-130--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Panel Assessment of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense 
Review. Dec. 2, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-131--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on The Role of Maritime and Air Power in DOD's 
Third Offset Strategy. Dec. 2, 2014.
    H.A.S.C. 113-132--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Russian Arms Control Cheating and the Administration's 
Responses (joint with Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Nonproliferation, and Trade of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs). Dec. 10, 2014.

                             PRESS RELEASES


                             First Session

    January 3, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on President 
Obama Signing the FY2013 NDAA into law
    January 7, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Sen. Hagel 
Nomination
    January 16, 2013--Chairman McKeon Responds to Service 
Chiefs' Letter to Congress
    January 22, 2013--McKeon Announces Roby As Chair of O&I 
Subcommittee
    January 29, 2013--McKeon Announces National Defense Panel 
Selections for Quadrennial Defense Review
    January 29, 2013--McKeon, Smith Announce Subcommittee 
Membership for 113th Congress
    January 30, 2013--McKeon Awaits Answers from Hagel During 
Nomination Hearing
    January 31, 2013--McKeon Opposes Hagel As Secretary of 
Defense
    February 5, 2013--McKeon and Inhofe on President's Expected 
Proposal to Replace Sequester
    February 6, 2013--McKeon and HASC Republicans To Propose 
``Down Payment'' to Protect National Security
    February 8, 2013--McKeon Responds To White House Fact Sheet 
On Sequester
    February 12, 2013--McKeon Statement on White House Plan to 
Withdraw Forces from Afghanistan
    February 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on President 
Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address
    February 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on North 
Korean Detonation
    February 13, 2013--Chairman McKeon: President's Plan for 
More Defense Cuts at Odds with Testimony
    February 20, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Civilian 
Furloughs
    February 28, 2013--McKeon and Subcommittee Chairs Will Host 
Morning Press Conference on March 1st
    March 6, 2013--Remaining Hearings POSTPONED
    March 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on House 
Republican Budget
    March 15, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Deployment of 
New Missile Defense Interceptors
    April 3, 2013--HASC Leadership Appoints Members to National 
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
    April 3, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Secretary 
Hagel's Speech at National Defense University
    April 8, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on the Passing of 
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
    April 10, 2013--Statement by the Chairman on the 
President's Budget Submission
    April 22, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Disposition of 
Suspected Terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
    April 25, 2013--McKeon Releases the FY14 NDAA Markup 
Schedule
    April 25, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Situation in 
Syria
    April 25, 2013--McKeon Letter to Secretary Hagel on 
Benghazi
    April 26, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Secretary 
Donley
    April 30, 2013--Chairman McKeon Responds to President 
Obama's Guantanamo Claim
    May 7, 2013--Chairman McKeon Announces Nomination to 
Military Sexual Assault Review Panel
    May 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on DoD Denial of Vital 
Benghazi Oversight Information
    May 9, 2013--McKeon: HASC Will Act to Combat Sexual Assault
    May 14, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Allegations of 
Further Sexual Misconduct in the Military
    May 15, 2013--McKeon Continues Benghazi Oversight
    May 15, 2013--McKeon, Smith Begin FY 2014 Defense 
Authorization Process
    May 21, 2013--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
Mark Released
    May 21, 2013--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Released
    May 21, 2013--Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee Mark Released
    May 21, 2013--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee 
Mark Released
    May 22, 2013--Readiness Subcommittee Mark Released
    May 22, 2013--Military Personnel Subcommittee Mark Released
    May 23, 2013--Background Material on Guantanamo Bay
    May 24, 2013--Myth vs Fact: Obama's Strained View Of 
National Security
    June 3, 2013--Chairman McKeon Releases Full Committee Mark
    June 5, 2013--Opening Statement of Chairman McKeon for Full 
Committee Markup
    June 6, 2013--House Armed Services Committee Passes Fiscal 
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act
    June 7, 2013--Chairman McKeon writing in Washington Post: 
Budget cuts chip away at military readiness
    June 13, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Latest 
Developments in Syria
    June 14, 2013--McKeon Statement On House Passage Of 
National Defense Authorization Act For 2014
    June 19, 2013--Chairman McKeon on the President's Berlin 
Remarks
    June 26, 2013--Readout of House Armed Services Committee, 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Classified 
Briefing on Benghazi
    June 27, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Unanimous House 
Action to Combat Sexual Assault in the Military
    July 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on Pentagon Furloughs
    July 9, 2013--McKeon on ``Zero Option''
    July 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Sends Letter to President 
Regarding ``Zero Option''
    July 19, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Second Circuit 
Ruling Regarding NDAA
    July 30, 2013--McKeon Comments on Manning Verdict
    July 31, 2013--McKeon Statement on Strategic Choices and 
Management Review
    July 31, 2013--Readout of House Armed Services Committee, 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Classified 
Briefing on Benghazi
    August 6, 2013--McKeon Statement on DoD Furlough Update
    August 15, 2013--McKeon Statement on New DoD Sexual Assault 
Policies
    August 21, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Bradley 
Manning Sentence
    August 23, 2013--McKeon Statement on Hasan Verdict
    August 26, 2013--McKeon Statement on Developments in Syria
    September 11, 2013--McKeon Statement on 9/11 Anniversary
    September 16, 2013--McKeon, Smith Joint Statement on Navy 
Yard Shootings
    September 17, 2013--McKeon Statement on Defense Department 
Inspector General Report on Contractor Access to Naval 
Installations
    September 30, 2013--McKeon Statement on Military Pay and 
Potential Government Shutdown
    October 4, 2013--Rep. Wilson Urges Secretary of Defense to 
Follow Pay Our Military Act
    October 4, 2013--McKeon Announces Changes to Armed Services 
Committee Staff
    October 5, 2013--Chairman McKeon on the Reinstatement of 
Furloughed DOD Civilians
    October 6, 2013--McKeon Statement on the Capture of Abu 
Anas al-Libi
    October 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on Death Gratuity
    October 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on the Departure of Paul 
M. Lewis
    October 9, 2013--HASC Vice Chairman Thornberry: Pentagon 
playing political games with death benefits
    October 9, 2013--McKeon Statement on Rep. Bill Young's 
Retirement Announcement
    October 11, 2013--Roby Comments On Benghazi Briefing With 
General Dempsey
    October 19, 2013--McKeon Comments On The Passing Of 
Congressman Bill Young
    October 24, 2013--HASC Republicans Stress Need to Maintain 
National Defense in Budget Conference
    October 28, 2013--McKeon Statement On The Passing Of 
Chairman Ike Skelton
    October 29, 2013--Forbes, Hanabusa Lead Asia Pacific 
Oversight Series
    October 29, 2013--McKeon Taps Thornberry to Lead Reform 
Effort
    November 1, 2013--McKeon Urges President to Adopt 
Comprehensive Policy in Iraq
    November 6, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Rep. Runyan
    November 9, 2013--McKeon Statement On Reported Iran Nuke 
Deal
    November 13, 2013--HASC Leaders Statement on Asia Pacific 
Ambassadors Roundtable
    November 21, 2013--HASC Leaders Comment On NDAA Progress
    November 22, 2013--McKeon Reacts to Iran Nuclear Deal
    December 5, 2013--McKeon Statement on Rep. Martha Roby
    December 6, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Pearl Harbor 
Anniversary
    December 9, 2013--McKeon Releases FY14 NDAA Summary Fact 
Sheet 
    December 10, 2013--McKeon, Smith Release FY14 Defense Bill
    December 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of 
the 52nd National Defense Authorization Act
    December 12, 2013--McKeon Statement on Passage of 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

                             Second Session

    January 6, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on al-Qaeda in 
Iraq
    January 6, 2014--Armed Services Committee Mourns The 
Passing of John Chapla
    January 8, 2014--McKeon Welcomes Rep. Bradley Byrne to the 
House Armed Services Committee
    January 10, 2014--McKeon Statement on Pentagon's Finding on 
Snowden
    January 13, 2014--Declassified Transcripts of Benghazi 
Briefings Released Files
    January 13, 2014--Committee Members React to Chinese Hyper 
Sonic Missile Test
    January 15, 2014--McKeon Taps Heck As Oversight And 
Investigations Chair
    January 16, 2014--McKeon, Smith on the Passing of former 
Rep. Ben Blaz
    January 30, 2014--HASC Leaders Call on Obama Administration 
to Act on Russia's Cheating on Nuclear Agreements
    February 10, 2014--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations Releases Report on DOD Response to Benghazi
    February 12, 2014--McKeon Statement on Karzai Government's 
Planned Release of Enemy Combatants in Afghanistan
    February 17, 2014--McKeon Queries Services and COCOMs On 
Unfunded Requirements Files
    March 1, 2014--McKeon Statement on Russian Military Action 
in Ukraine
    March 4, 2014--McKeon Statement on DoD Budget
    March 4, 2014--Chairman McKeon Rejects QDR
    March 12, 2014--McKeon Comments On Menendez Bill
    March 26, 2014--ARMED SERVICES LEADERS URGE PRESIDENT TO 
ACT ON UKRAINE
    March 27, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on the Passing of 
Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger
    April 1, 2014--McKeon Statement on Ryan Budget
    April 2, 2014--Bipartisan National Security Leaders Reach 
Out to Stakeholders on DoD Reform
    April 3, 2014--McKeon, Smith Welcome Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to 
the House Armed Services Committee
    April 4, 2014--McKeon Statement on ENLIST Act and the NDAA
    April 7, 2014--McKeon Releases the FY15 NDAA Markup 
Schedule
    April 7, 2014--McKeon, Turner To Discuss Russia, Ukraine, 
and U.S. Military Posture
    April 7, 2014--McKeon Statement on Afghanistan Elections
    April 10, 2014--McKeon, Smith Begin FY 2015 Defense 
Authorization Process
    April 23, 2014--Committee to Add Electronic Amendment 
Distribution to Press for NDAA Markup
    April 29, 2014--Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee Mark Released
    April 29, 2014--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Released
    April 29, 2014--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee 
Mark Released
    April 29, 2014--Military Personnel Subcommittee Mark 
Released
    April 30, 2014--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces Mark Released
    April 30, 2014--Readiness Subcommittee Mark Released
    April 30, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
    April 30, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Forbes
    April 30, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Wilson
    May 1, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Turner
    May 1, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Wittman
    May 1, 2014--McKeon Responds to Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee Witness on Benghazi
    May 2, 2014--Chairman McKeon in Washington Post: Obama's 
inaction invites challenges to the U.S.
    May 2, 2014--McKeon Congratulates Wada
    May 5, 2014--McKeon Releases Full Committee Mark Files
    May 8, 2014--Chairman McKeon on Passage of NDAA
    May 8, 2014--Chairmen Rogers, Poe and Heck Statement on 
NDAA INF Treaty Provision
    May 22, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of the 
53rd National Defense Authorization Act
    May 27, 2014--McKeon Statement on President's Troop Level 
Announcement
    May 28, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Secretary 
Shinseki
    May 31, 2014--McKeon, Inhofe, Statement On Release Of 
Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl In Exchange For Release Of Five 
Guantanamo Detainees
    June 2, 2014--Fact Sheet on Guantanamo Transfers
    June 3, 2014--McKeon Invites Secretary Hagel to testify on 
Transfer of Senior Taliban Detainees
    June 5, 2014--McKeon on Dunford Nomination
    June 11, 2014--McKeon Responds To New White House Claims On 
Terrorist Transfer
    June 11, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman McKeon on The 
May 31, 202014 Transfer of Five Senior Taliban Detainees
    June 13, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Situation in 
Iraq
    June 17, 2014--Chairman McKeon on Capture of Ahmed Abu 
Khattala
    June 18, 2014--Readout of House Armed Services Committee 
Taliban Transfer Briefing
    June 19, 2014--McKeon on President Obama's Iraq Statement
    June 20, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2015
    June 23, 2014--McKeon Statement on Successful Ballistic 
Missile Defense Test
    June 26, 2014--McKeon Comments On Overseas Contingency 
Operations Request
    June 27, 2014--McKeon Statement on President Obama's Land 
Mine Announcement
    July 9, 2014--Additional Declassified Benghazi Transcripts 
Released
    July 24, 2014--Armed Services Committee to Consider Rigell 
Taliban 5 Resolution
    July 25, 2014--McKeon Responds to Ambassador Susan Rice's 
Letter to Speaker Boehner
    July 28, 2014--JUST THE FACTS: How the Transfer of the 
Taliban Five Violated The Law
    July 30, 2014--JUST THE FACTS: Obama Administration's Long-
Overdue Recognition of Russian Cheating on the INF Treaty
    July 30, 2014--McKeon Statement on HASC Markup of H. Res 
644
    August 1, 2014--HASC Members Urge Senator Harry Reid to 
Support Israel by Bringing SASC NDAA Mark to the Floor
    August 5, 2014--McKeon Statement on Afghanistan Attack
    August 7, 2014--McKeon Statement on Situation in Iraq
    August 21, 2014--McKeon Calls for Leak Investigation Around 
Foley Rescue Attempt
    August 27, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on ISIS
    August 28, 2014--McKeon, Turner Statement on Reports of 
Russian Troops in Ukraine
    September 5, 2014--Full House to Vote on HASC-passed 
Resolution of Condemnation by Rep. Rigell
    September 10, 2014--FACT SHEET: 5 Elements Of A Successful 
Strategy To Destroy ISIL
    September 10, 2014--McKeon on ISIL: Politics Must Not Be A 
Limiting Factor
    September 11, 2014--McKeon Statement On Obama Strategy To 
Defeat ISIL
    September 11, 2014--McKeon Statement on 9/11 Anniversary
    September 11, 2014--McKeon Presents Strategy to Defeat ISIL 
at AEI
    September 15, 2014--Chairman McKeon Amendment on Syria 
Train and Equip Mission
    September 18, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of 
Syria Train and Equip Amendment
    September 23, 2014--McKeon Statement on Action Against ISIL 
Terrorists in Syria
    September 26, 2014--McKeon, Thornberry Seek Answers from 
National Security Advisor Susan Rice
    September 29, 2014--McKeon Statement on Bilateral Security 
Agreement with Afghan Government
    October 23, 2014--McKeon Statement on Terrorist Attack In 
Canada
    October 30, 2014--McKeon Calls on Secretary Hagel to 
Immediately Suspend All Terror Detainee Transfers
    November 7, 2014--McKeon Statement on Potential White House 
Funding Request
    November 14, 2014--McKeon Comments On Hagel Nuclear Force 
Recommendations
    November 18, 2014--McKeon Congratulates HASC Chairman-
Select Thornberry
    November 20, 2014--McKeon: GTMO Releases Must Stop
    December 2, 2014--HASC, SASC Release Text of FY 2015 NDAA 
Agreement
    December 4, 2014--McKeon Delivers Farewell Address to House 
as NDAA passes 300-119
    December 5, 2014--McKeon Statement on Misconduct Aboard the 
USS Wyoming
    December 9, 2014--Chairman-Elect Thornberry Welcomes New 
Members To The House Armed Services Committee