H. Rept. 113-309 - 113th Congress (2013-2014)
December 27, 2013, As Reported by the Armed Services Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


House Report 113-309 - FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES of the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES for the ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

[House Report 113-309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 227

113th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 113-309

                          FIRST ANNUAL REPORT

                           ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                                for the

                    ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS






 December 27, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                   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           ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah                     JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia          HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
DUNCAN HUNTER, California                Georgia
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana              COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               JACKIE SPEIER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            RON BARBER, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada               DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               DEREK KILMER, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama                   SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida           WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota         PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
PAUL COOK, California                MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana

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

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Washington, DC, December 27, 2013.
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 
first 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..................................................    21
Committee Meetings and Hearings..................................    23
Legislative Activities...........................................    24
Oversight Activities.............................................    27
Publications.....................................................    90


                                                 Union Calendar No. 227
113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    113-309

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



 
    FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 
                    SERVICES FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 December 27, 2013.--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 
Services 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 January 3, 2013), H. Res. 
7 (agreed to January 3, 2013), H. Res. 17 (agreed to January 4, 
2013), and H. Res. 22 (agreed to January 14, 2013), 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, 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
ANDRE 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
                                     KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
                                     PAUL COOK, California
                                     JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
                                     BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
                                     JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana

----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
            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
ANDRE 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

MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
RICK LARSEN, Washington              STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii          MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
DEREK KILMER, Washington             JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
                                     PAUL COOK, California

                    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
ANDRE 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

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
RON BARBER, Arizona                  MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York           PAUL COOK, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas                JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois          JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
                                     ROB BISHOP, Utah

----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.

              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

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

----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
                            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:

 Robert Simmons II, 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
  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
  Douglas C. Roach, Professional 
 Staff Member (deceased Jan. 11, 
               2013)
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff 
              Member
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 and Senior Advisor to the 
             Chairman
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
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Elizabeth Nathan, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive 
             Assistant
      Nicholas Rodman, Clerk
  Andrew T. Walter, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Claude Chafin, Communications 
             Director
         Aaron Falk, Clerk
       Arthur Milikh, Clerk
       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
Dan Harder, Intern (appointed Jan. 
 23, 2013, resigned Mar. 22, 2013)
Daniel Westlake, Intern (appointed 
 Jan. 23, 2013, resigned May 17, 
               2013)
   Alexandra Chinchilla, Intern 
(appointed Jan. 24, 2013, resigned 
           May 16, 2013)
 Gabe Surratt, Intern (appointed 
 Feb. 8, 2013, resigned June 14, 
               2013)
Colin Bosse, Clerk (appointed Mar. 
             4, 2013)
 Julie Herbert, Clerk (appointed 
          Mar. 13, 2013)
Colleen Taggart, Intern (appointed 
  May 20, 2013, resigned Aug. 2, 
               2013)
Schuyler Miller, Intern (appointed 
  May 27, 2013, resigned Aug. 2, 
               2013)
 Daniel Swartz, Intern (appointed 
  June 3, 2013, resigned Aug. 2, 
               2013)
 Alec Sugarman, Intern (appointed 
 June 13, 2013, resigned Aug. 2, 
               2013)
  Rob Simmons, Intern (appointed 
 June 24, 2013, resigned Aug. 27, 
               2013)
Stephen Harris, Intern (appointed 
 July 1, 2013, resigned July 26, 
               2013)
  David Giachetti, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed Sept. 1, 
               2013)
Kate Bock, Intern (appointed Sept. 
 3, 2013, resigned Dec. 12, 2013)
  Aaron Novy, Intern (appointed 
 Sept. 3, 2013, resigned Dec. 12, 
               2013)
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Sept. 16, 2013)
 Viktor Stoll, Intern (appointed 
Sept. 16, 2013, resigned Dec. 12, 
               2013)
                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

    A total of 153 meetings and hearings have been held by the 
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees and panels 
during the 113th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and 
hearings follows:

FULL COMMITTEE....................................................    46
SUBCOMMITTEES:
    Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
      Capabilities................................................    20
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    14
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    19
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................    15
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    15
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................    14
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................    10
                         LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

             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 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.

           Legislation Passed by the House of Representatives


   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 2013, please see H.R. 3304.

   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.
    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 to 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 Senate and held at the desk. H.R. 3304 is 
awaiting further action in the Senate.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would: (1) Authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2014 for procurement and for research, development, 
test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2014 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for 
working capital funds; (3) Authorize 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; (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 2014 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas 
Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2014 for the Department of Energy national security 
programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2014 for the Maritime Administration.
    H.R. 3304, 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 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 Not Reported But Managed by the Committee on Armed Services 
              on the Floor of the House of Representatives


     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. No further action has been 
taken.

    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 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.
                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

                                OVERVIEW

    Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI 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 first 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. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 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. 
3304 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. 3304 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, ranging from on-going operations in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the security situation in 
the Syrian Arab Republic, the renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific 
region, heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula, dispersed 
special operations in support of the global war on terrorism, 
and time-sensitive disaster and humanitarian responses, serve 
to highlight 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.
    The committee recognizes that the Budget Control Act of 
2011 (Public Law 112-25) and defense sequestration has had, and 
will continue to have, a severe impact on the military. To help 
the Department of Defense further understand the impacts of 
sequestration and the resultant strategic choices and tradeoffs 
it must consider in such a constrained budget environment, the 
Secretary of Defense undertook a Strategic Choices and 
Management Review (SCMR). The committee convened several 
hearings and briefings, building upon previous oversight 
activities conducted in prior sessions of Congress, to further 
its understanding of the impacts of sequestration on the 
Department of Defense and the strategic choices considered in 
the SCMR. Following the automatic cuts to the defense budget 
that began in January 2013, as required by the Budget Control 
Act, the committee held a hearing on the ``Impacts of a 
Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Defense,'' on 
February 13, 2013, with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. On August 1, 2013, the committee convened a hearing on 
the ``Initial Conclusions Formed by the Defense Strategic 
Choices and Management Review,'' with the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
on September 18, 2013, held a hearing titled ``Planning for 
Sequestration in Fiscal Year 2014 and Perspectives of the 
Military Services on the Strategic Choices and Management 
Review.''
    These hearings, coupled with committee briefings and 
official statements from senior defense officials over the past 
year, further illustrate the acute impact of sequestration on 
military force posture, readiness, modernization, and planning 
and budgeting. The committee is committed to providing 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. 3304 would authorize $552.1 
billion in spending for national defense and an additional 
$80.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, consistent 
with the House budget, the President's budget request, and the 
Senate budget. This legislation would ensure our troops 
deployed in 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 committee recognizes that continued sequestration of 
the national defense accounts, or future national defense 
appropriations at sequestration funding levels, would limit the 
ability of the Department to implement the 2012 defense 
strategic guidance, and may very well impact the new National 
Security Strategy (NSS) and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 
both expected to be released in early 2014. The committee has 
maintained oversight of the QDR process through a series of 
staff briefings provided by the Department in 2013. It also 
convened an Oversight & Investigation Subcommittee hearing on 
February 26, 2013, with experts outside of government titled, 
``The Quadrennial Defense Review: Process, Policy, and 
Perspectives,'' to examine the QDR process and broader 
strategic issues the QDR should consider. The committee will 
continue to monitor QDR developments as well as the subsequent 
independent review of the QDR by the associated National 
Defense Panel (NDP). Through the committee's oversight, it will 
be postured to consider the findings and recommendations of the 
NSS, QDR, and NDP, and to understand the assumptions and 
assessments leading to possible changes from previous national 
strategies and reviews.

                        Afghanistan and Pakistan

    The committee maintained three critical areas of focus with 
respect to the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and 
U.S. efforts with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including:
    (1) The efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda,
    (2) The transition of security responsibilities from the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-International 
Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) to the Afghan National 
Security Forces (ANSF) and the retrograde of ISAF equipment, 
and
    (3) the progress of the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) 
between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan and 
the planning for any post-2014 residual presence of U.S. troops 
in Afghanistan.
    The committee conducted numerous oversight activities, 
including staff and member-level briefings. Additionally, the 
committee convened hearings to complement the oversight of the 
policy, strategy, and post-2014 presence in Afghanistan, 
including hearings with outside experts on February 27, 2013 
and September 19, 2013.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would extend a number of authorities that 
support congressional oversight of U.S. defense programs in 
Afghanistan. H.R. 3304 would re-authorize the Commanders' 
Emergency Response Program (CERP), the Afghanistan 
Infrastructure Fund (AIF), the authority for reintegration 
activities in Afghanistan, the Task Force for Business and 
Stability Operations (TFBSO), and the Afghanistan Security 
Forces Fund (ASFF). These authorities support the NATO-ISAF 
commander's campaign plan in Afghanistan. Additionally, H.R. 
3304 would include a description of U.S. policy and approach in 
Afghanistan and calls on the President to consult with Congress 
on any post-2014 mission prior to any public announcement on a 
presidential decision to have a post-2014 presence in 
Afghanistan. H.R. 3304 would also limit 50 percent of funds 
authorized to be appropriated for CERP, AIF, and ASFF until the 
Secretary of Defense certifies to specified congressional 
committees of jurisdiction that the United States has signed a 
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the Government of 
Afghanistan and that the BSA is in the national security 
interest of the United States. Lastly, H.R. 3304 would provide 
for certain improvements in the process for the authority, 
consistent with section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-8), to provide Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to 
those who worked with the U.S. military in Afghanistan.
    The committee remains concerned about the control of the 
border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the ability of the 
groups that exploit the difficulty in securing this border to 
attack ISAF and ASNF forces in order to affect the strategic 
landscape in Afghanistan. To support oversight of this issue, 
H.R. 3304 would require the Secretary of Defense to furnish a 
report on the plan to disrupt and degrade the Haqqani Network, 
which will provide the committee with an understanding of the 
interagency effort against the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan 
and the region.
    Finally, the committee continues to maintain a focus on the 
United States' efforts with the Government of Pakistan. To that 
end, H.R. 3304 would re-authorize the Coalition Support Fund 
(CSF), which reimburses certain countries, including Pakistan, 
for their direct support to Operation Enduring Freedom; 
however, this section also would require the Secretary of 
Defense to certify 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, and interaction with 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) auditors, 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.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize $955.0 million for JIEDDO; 
would direct the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report to 
Congress on the long-term strategy for JIEDDO; and would extend 
existing authorities to December 31, 2014, to include JIEDDO's 
ability to transfer limited funding to the Department of State 
for the purposes of mitigating the movement of explosive 
precursors for improvised explosive devices from Pakistan to 
Afghanistan.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
classified briefing on August 1, 2013 to receive a global IED 
assessment, with particular emphasis on Afghanistan.

                        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 and 
briefings 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''; a hearing on March 3, 2013, ``The 
Posture of the U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations 
Command, and U.S. Transportation Command''; a briefing on March 
19, 2013, ``Counterterrorism Operations Update''; a briefing on 
April 24, 2013, ``Weapons of Mass Destruction and 
Counterproliferation Programs''; a hearing on June 28, 2013, 
``Past, Present, and Future Irregular Warfare Challenges''; a 
briefing on July 11, 2013, ``Exploitation of Materials 
Recovered during the Osama bin Laden Raid''; a briefing on July 
31, 2013, ``Counterterrorism Policy and Operations Update''; a 
briefing on September 12, 2013, ``Counterterrorism Operations 
Update''; a hearing on October 10, 2013, ``Biodefense, 
Worldwide Threats and Countermeasures for the Department of 
Defense''; a briefing on October 16, 2013, ``Counterterrorism 
Operations Update''; and a briefing on October 23, 2013, on the 
state of Al Qaeda.
    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 (DOD) 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.
    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 passed by the House, in 
the committee report accompanying H.R. 1960, and H.R. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This 
included: a provision to re-authorize 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 
of Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and East Africa 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; and homeland defense and consequence management 
programs; intelligence policy, national intelligence programs, 
and DOD elements part of the Intelligence Community. Further 
details on these subcommittee activities are provided elsewhere 
in this report.

                                  Asia

    The defense strategic guidance, released in January 2012, 
stated that the United States military would rebalance to the 
Asia-Pacific region in recognition of the economic and security 
interests of the United States in the region. The region is 
home to more than 50 percent of the world's population; 3,000 
different languages; several of the world's largest militaries; 
five countries allied with the United States through mutual 
defense treaties (the Commonwealth of Australia, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, and the 
Kingdom of Thailand); two of the world's four largest economies 
(Japan and the People's Republic of China); and 10 of its 14 
smallest economies. Given the size and importance of the 
region, the committee 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.
    The People's Republic of China continued efforts to assert 
regional influence, while the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea (DPRK) remained a threat to stability on the Korean 
peninsula. As part of its oversight, the committee held several 
classified briefings examining regional developments ranging 
from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) military modernization 
trends to the North Korean threat to test launch a missile, as 
well as classified briefings on the 2013 annual reports on 
military and security developments related to the People's 
Republic of China and North Korea. The committee also held a 
hearing on November 20, 2013, on the 2013 Annual Report to 
Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission, focusing on several PLA modernization developments 
over the last year and China's engagement in cyber espionage 
against the United States.
    As part of the committee's oversight of this critical 
region, the Chairman and Ranking Member have committed to a 
dedicated Asia-Pacific hearing series, led by Rep. J. Randy 
Forbes and Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa. In addition to the 
hearings held by the committee and its subcommittees as part of 
this series, on November 13, 2013, the committee held a closed-
door roundtable with regional Ambassadors from Australia, 
Japan, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and South Korea to 
discuss issues of mutual interest and concern.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would add an additional reporting requirement 
to the Department of Defense Annual Report on Military and 
Security Developments Involving the DPRK. The Joint Explanatory 
Statement accompanying H.R. 3304 would also contain a provision 
that would add an additional reporting requirement on China's 
fifth generation fighter program to the Department of Defense 
annual report on military and security developments involving 
the People's Republic of China.
    The committee remained focused on the Asia-Pacific region 
and its evolving security environment, particularly regarding 
engagement with allies and partners. The committee continued to 
monitor key operational control transition initiatives between 
U.S. Forces Korea and the Republic of Korea, as well as the 
Yongsan Relocation Plan and the Land Partnership Plan. With 
respect to Japan, the committee continued to focus on the 
continued realignment of U.S. forces that are based in Japan. 
Committee staff traveled to South Korea and Japan to conduct 
congressional oversight of the force posture of U.S. forces in 
South Korea and Japan. The committee also continued to evaluate 
U.S. military engagement with other regional allies and 
partners, including Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, 
and several other countries.

                       Central and South America

    The committee continued to examine the issues affecting the 
United States military in Central and South America, as many 
nations in this region increasingly face the dangers of illicit 
trafficking, political turmoil, and instability that pose a 
potential threat to the homeland. The committee maintained 
strong oversight of the U.S. role in the Republic of Colombia, 
as Colombia continues to improve its national security and 
continues peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of 
Colombia (FARC). In addition, the committee continually 
monitored the political and economic changes in the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela, instability in parts of Central America 
including the Republic of Honduras, and the security situation 
in the United Mexican States. The committee examined potential 
threats from global terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, 
Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, who have 
increasing influence in the region.
    The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 
includes several provisions that would reauthorize Department 
of Defense counternarcotics authorities for the Republic of 
Colombia and other nations in the region. In addition, the 
Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304 would 
require a number of briefings and reports from the Department 
of Defense, including a counternarcotics strategy in Central 
America and the status of operations as it relates to Operation 
Martillo. The committee recognizes the importance of the United 
States' relationship with its Central and South American 
neighbors and the assurance of safety and security in the 
region.

                                 Europe

    While the stability and security of Europe remain core U.S. 
national interests, the U.S. military force presence in Europe 
has declined dramatically since the end of the cold war. The 
planned withdrawal of two of four Army Brigade Combat Teams 
will further reduce U.S. military presence. Nevertheless, there 
are 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 the 
region, as was demonstrated recently by Operation Odyssey Dawn 
and Operation Unified Protector in Libya. The committee 
continued to examine all overseas basing, including Europe, to 
inform its views on a cost effective force posture to meet U.S. 
national security needs.
    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 (ISAF) training teams in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. However, the continuing constrained 
fiscal environment has created pressures on the region's 
militaries, defense budgets, and investments in future 
capabilities. To deal with the financial impact on the region's 
militaries, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) agreed to a ``Smart Defense'' initiative, a 
series of projects designed to pool and share resources in 
order to better set priorities and encourage members to 
specialize. In addition to the full committee hearing on the 
posture of the U.S. European Command listed elsewhere in this 
report, the committee held a number of staff briefings to 
consider developments in Europe. The committee will continue to 
focus on the U.S. military's engagement in NATO's activities.
    While the cold war has been over for more than 20 years, 
the U.S. military's relationship with the Russian Federation is 
focused on building and maintaining cooperative military-to-
military relations while also reassuring U.S. allies wary of 
Russia's intentions. Russia remains focused on reforming and 
modernizing their forces, with specific emphasis on improving 
the recruitment, training, and retention of its troops. The 
committee paid particular attention to U.S-Russia discussions 
on missile defense, conducting several staff briefings and 
member engagements with senior Department of Defense and 
Department of State officials.
    The committee also closely followed U.S-Russia 
nonproliferation activities, and held several staff-level 
briefings on the umbrella agreement governing the 
nonproliferation activities of the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Energy. Russia announced it wanted changes to 
this agreement, which was set to expire in June 2013. The old 
agreement helped the U.S. Government, particularly Department 
of Defense personnel, secure and dismantle Soviet-era nuclear 
weapons and contained key liabilities for U.S. personnel. The 
new agreement, signed in June 2013, enables continued 
engagement only between the National Nuclear Security 
Administration and Russia's State Nuclear Energy Cooperation 
(Rosatom).
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, expressed the sense 
of Congress on the importance of stationing U.S. forces in 
Europe. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 
would require the Department of Defense to submit a report on 
military and security developments involving the Russian 
Federation.

                      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 activities 
central to addressing these emerging and unforeseen threats, 
including counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, security force 
assistance, and building partnership capacity (BPC), all of 
which received renewed emphasis in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 
Review.
    While there are roughly a dozen authorities that fall into 
the BPC category, the committee devoted particular attention to 
the global train and equip ``1206'' authority and the Global 
Security Contingency Fund. 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.
    The committee held a hearing on February 14, 2013, 
``Framework for Building Partnership Capacity Authorities to 
Meet 21st Century Challenges'' and received testimony from 
witnesses representing the Department of Defense and the 
Government Accountability Office.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, and the Joint Explanatory Statement 
accompanying it, includes several provisions that would 
reauthorize authorities and requiring reports dealing with 
Department of Defense counternarcotics programs, including 
programs in the Republic of Colombia and the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan. H.R. 3304 would also modify and extend the 
``1206'' authority to include authorizing train and equip 
activities with those security forces of foreign nations that 
conduct counterterrorism operations, extending the authority 
through 2017, and requiring two new reports. H.R. 3304 would 
also make technical modifications to the Global Security 
Contingency Fund authority, section 1207 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), and codify the National Guard State Partnership Program.

       Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters

    During the 113th Congress, the committee has 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 three 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.
    The committee also focused on issues relating to detainee 
interrogations, intelligence collection, detainee reviews, 
conditions of confinement, and the Department of Defense's role 
in the High Value Interrogation Group.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, contains numerous provisions relating to 
detention policy, including a 1-year prohibition on the 
transfer of GTMO detainees to the United States, a 1-year 
prohibition on the construction or modification of facilities 
in the United States to house GTMO detainees, and authorities, 
under certain circumstances and subject to certain 
requirements, relating to foreign transfers of GTMO detainees. 
H.R. 3304 also contains several reporting requirements relating 
to detainees at GTMO and in Afghanistan.

                              Intelligence

    The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats, and Capabilities conducted extensive 
oversight of defense intelligence activities, including one 
hearing, seven member briefings, and 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, audit capabilities, and 
information-sharing policies following recent extensive 
unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, includes several intelligence-related 
provisions, including: a requirement for the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a policy for internal coordination and 
prioritization of Department of Defense intelligence 
priorities; a limitation on the use of funds for the Defense 
Clandestine Service; 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; and a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan regarding future use of defense intelligence 
assets as a result of the U.S. military drawdown in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan.

                      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.

                        The Continent of Africa

    The committee conducted regular oversight of the continent 
of Africa, including numerous staff level briefings and a 
member-level briefing in closed session.
    Additionally, H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would re-authorize the efforts of the 
Department of Defense and U.S. Africa Command, consistent with 
the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda 
Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), to assist the 
Ugandan People's Defense Force as they combat the Lord's 
Resistance Army (LRA) and attempt to remove or apprehend Joseph 
Kony. This re-authorization allows for the provision of 
logistic support, supplies, and services, and intelligence 
support to foreign forces participating in operations to 
mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's 
Resistance Army. Additionally, H.R. 3304 provided $50.0 million 
for additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) capability to aid this effort. Finally, H.R. 3304 
required reports on counterterrorism assistance and cooperation 
in the Sahel and Maghreb regions, a strategy to support 
security and governance gains in Somalia, and an intelligence 
assessment of al-Shabaab, an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist 
group in Somalia to complement and reinforce the committee's 
oversight of defense policy related to the African continent. 
Finally, H.R. 3304 would authorize a report on the posture and 
readiness of the U.S. armed forces to respond to future 
terrorist attacks in Africa and the Middle East against U.S. 
embassies and facilities.

                                 Syria

    The committee conducted regular oversight of the evolving 
security situation in Syrian Arab Republic and the region, 
including staff level briefings and two member-level briefings 
in closed session. Additionally, the committee convened a 
hearing on the security situation in Syria on July 17, 2013, 
and a hearing on the Administration's proposed authorization 
for the use of force against the Government of Syria on 
September 9, 2013.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
provide assistance to the military and civilian first responder 
organizations of countries that share a border with Syria in 
order to enhance the capability of such countries to respond 
effectively to potential incidents involving weapons of mass 
destruction in Syria and the surrounding region. In addition, 
H.R. 3304 would authorize assistance on a reimbursable basis to 
the Government of Jordan for their efforts to secure the 
Jordan-Syria border.
    H.R. 3304 would also provide enhanced authority through the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program to facilitate destruction 
of Syria's chemical weapons. The committee continues oversight 
of these activities, as well as U.S. nonproliferation programs 
at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

    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, have been 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 this year: 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 committee to testify on 
``The Defense Department's Posture for September 11, 2013: What 
are the Lessons of Benghazi?''
    While the committee's inquiries continue, the committee has 
found that:
    (1) No Department of Defense personnel signed (or were 
asked to sign) non-disclosure agreements.
    (2) No Armed Forces, units, weapons, or specific personnel 
that could have been readily deployed in the course of the 
attack were unduly held back, told to ``stand down,'' or 
refused permission to enter the fight.
    (3) The posture the Department of Defense mandated for its 
forces worldwide on September 11, 2012 requires further 
oversight.
    Furthermore, as a result of the committee's activities, 
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, would direct 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.

                                  Iran

    The committee continued to conduct oversight of the threat 
posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear 
weapon to the 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.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize a report on U.S. military 
partnership with the countries of the Gulf Coordination Council 
(GCC), which would provide information on U.S. posture, 
agreements, and sustainability of funding of such efforts. 
Additionally, H.R. 3304 would authorize the United States to 
conduct integrated air and missile defense training programs 
with GCC allies. These legislative efforts support the 
committee's oversight of U.S. military posture in the region of 
Iran.

                                  Iraq

    Although U.S. forces deployed to the Republic of Iraq are 
limited to those associated with the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), the committee continues to conduct 
robust oversight of the security environment in Iraq and the 
activities of OSC-I. The committee has received a number of 
staff-level briefings on OSC-I and the security situation in 
Iraq. Additionally, the committee received a member-level 
briefing in closed session on Middle East intelligence and 
operations, which included analysis on the situation in Iraq.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would re-authorize OSC-I and its ability to 
provide training in a institutional, non-operational 
environment to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, including the 
Iraqi Counterterrorism Service (CTS). This section would limit 
the total funding authorized for OSC-I to $209.0 million for 
fiscal year 2014. Additionally, the Joint Explanatory Statement 
accompanying H.R. 3304 would direct the Secretary of State, in 
coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, to submit a report 
on the current security situation at Camp Liberty in Iraq and 
efforts to relocate the camp residents to other countries. H.R. 
3304 would also extend the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program 
for Iraq, consistent with the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 
2007, and would authorize up to 2,500 additional visas for 
potential Iraqi immigrants that worked with the U.S. military 
in Iraq between March 2003 and September 2013. Finally, this 
section required certain improvements in processing SIV 
applications for eligible Iraqis.

                  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. 3304, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 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, and has given 
particular attention to efforts announced by the Secretary of 
Defense in July 2013, within the context of the Strategic 
Choices and Management Review undertaken by the Department of 
Defense, 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 
first 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 are driving the 
Department of Defense to reevaluate its organization and 
management structure to identify cost savings. Most significant 
in the past year was the announcement by the Secretary of 
Defense in July 2013, within the context of the Strategic 
Choices and Management Review undertaken by the Department of 
Defense, to identify cost savings through management 
efficiencies and overhead reductions within the Department's 
major headquarters. 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. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would 
require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for 
streamlining Department of Defense management headquarters.
    As a first step, in December 2013, the Secretary of Defense 
announced specific changes to the organization and management 
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including a 
restructure of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy; realignment of the Office of Net Assessment under the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; 
elimination of several deputy under secretary, assistant 
secretary, and deputy assistance secretary positions; 
realignments within the Office of the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer and Office of the DOD Chief Information Officer; and 
rebalance of internal resources within the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Office 
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
    The committee received a staff-level briefing on these 
proposed organizations reforms, and it will continue to solicit 
further information and analyses from the Department to ensure 
that such decisions were supported by thorough business case 
analyses and risk assessments. The committee has expressed some 
concern about these organizational changes, specifically the 
realignment of the Office of Net Assessment under the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, which is captured in 
the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304. The 
committee will also continue to ensure that any reductions to 
military or civilian end strength are made only following a 
thorough, holistic review of the Department's manpower 
requirements and the total force.

                          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, including 
its efforts to meet the Secretary of Defense's goal of 
achieving audit readiness on the Statement of Budgetary 
Resources by 2014, 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 in November. Supporting the 
Department's goal of achieving audit readiness by the end of 
2017, H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, 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 looks forward to receiving notification that 
the Statement of Budgetary Resources will be audit ready during 
the 113th Congress, as the current projected date for that 
certification is September 30, 2014.

                           Acquisition Issues


The Acquisition System and Acquisition Policy

    The committee continued to provide oversight of 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 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.
    As part of its oversight, the committee examined the 
military requirements process, which is the foundation for 
procurement of not only weapon systems, but also contracts for 
services. The committee also examined the process for 
developing the cost estimates for weapon systems and included 
section 814 in H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, that would strengthen acquisition 
planning by requiring the original baseline cost estimate to be 
reported in selected acquisition reports required by section 
2432 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also 
require identification and reporting of the primary risk 
parameters associated with each current reported cost estimate.
    Service contracting represents an increasingly important 
and large proportion of the acquisition expenditures of the 
Department of Defense. The committee continued to work to 
reform the acquisition process to reflect this reality by 
reviewing the management structure for these contracts; 
increasing the visibility and transparency of these contracts 
by reviewing service contract inventories; and monitoring 
efforts to prevent personal and organizational conflicts of 
interest.
    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, 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 has 
scheduled a joint exercise in January 2014, to specifically 
focus on planning, training, execution, and management of 
operational contract support. The committee applauds these 
efforts and looks forward to this and other events focused on 
developing the Department's ability to effectively and 
efficiently contract in support of contingency operations. 
Furthermore, the committee included section 821 in H.R. 3304, 
which would expand prohibitions on contracting with the enemy. 
This section would expand the authorities provided in section 
841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013 (Public Law 112-239) to other geographic combatant 
commands and would also make the authorities permanent.
    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 continues 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.
    The committee also continued efforts to protect supply 
availability of strategic materials and directed a Comptroller 
General review of supply activities related to specialty metals 
and expects the review to examine how Department program 
officials determine their needs for specialty metal components 
for major weapon systems throughout the acquisition life cycle; 
how information about these needs are communicated within 
Department programs, policies, and oversight offices and with 
prime contractors; and the extent to which the Department has 
issued waivers for specialty metals procurements in the last 5 
years and the basis for these waivers. The committee looks 
forward to the findings of this review.
    Despite the committee's efforts in these areas, it remains 
concerned about significant shortcomings in the current 
acquisition system. Therefore, in October 2013, the committee 
initiated an effort to examine 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 also continues to work with 
the Department of Defense to review the application of 
regulatory frameworks so as to begin eliminating unnecessary 
overhead, red tape, and bureaucracy. The committee held a 
hearing on October 29, 2013, ``Twenty-five years of acquisition 
reform: Where do we go from here?'' and received testimony from 
a panel of outside experts.

Defense Industrial Base and Technology Transfers

    The committee continued to closely monitor the health, 
security and innovative capacity of the defense industrial 
base, especially in light of changes to the defense strategy, 
the needs for recapitalization and modernization after 12 years 
of war, and budget pressures. The industrial base for complex 
major weapons systems has shrunk dramatically in the past 
decade, limiting the ability of the Department of Defense to 
control costs and encourage innovation through the use of 
competition. Industry has also struggled 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.
    The committee also monitored implementation of recent 
changes to the U.S. export control regime in order to determine 
its effectiveness in preventing the transfer of sensitive 
military-related technologies to potential adversaries. The 
consolidation of the defense industry and its increasingly 
global nature will continue to challenge the capabilities of 
current systems for industrial security. The committee 
monitored the Department's plans and statutory authorities for 
industrial security. In addition to overseeing the 
effectiveness of the Defense Security Service to carry out this 
mission, the committee continues to examine traditional 
mechanisms for industrial security, such as the personnel 
security clearance process and the National Industrial Security 
Program, as well as other areas where adversaries could exploit 
vulnerabilities or loop holes in the acquisition process to 
undermine the U.S. defense industrial base.

Information Technology and Business Systems

    Information technology (IT) systems are critical enablers 
for the Department of Defense. As the IT budget represents 
nearly $33 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 a related hearing on March 13, 2013, on 
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization 
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force.'' In addition to 
hearings, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats, 
and Capabilities held briefings on Department of Defense 
Electromagnetic Pulse as required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239). 
Additionally, the subcommittee conducted detailed oversight of 
specific programmatic issues related to IT.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying 
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014 passed by the House, 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 requirement 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.

                               READINESS


                      Strategic Military Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of 
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics, 
maintenance, military construction, installations, family 
housing, and the base closure and realignment process. The 
subcommittee also provided oversight on civilian personnel, 
energy security, and environmental issues that affect the 
Department of Defense. The committee visited numerous overseas 
bases to assess the skills of assigned forces, the material 
condition of equipment, the readiness challenges associated 
with the forces, along with the appropriate application of 
military construction in the overseas and contingency 
operations environments. Specifically, the committee has 
conducted numerous oversight visits to the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan and examined U.S. Central Command's plans to 
sustain operations while simultaneously withdrawing forces and 
equipment. The committee continues to assess the logistics and 
readiness challenges facing the Department of Defense as it 
implements these plans.
    The Department's implementation of the Defense Strategic 
Guidance focused on the rebalance to the Asia Pacific region 
remained a key area of oversight. The committee continues to 
assess Department of Defense force-generation capabilities, its 
ability to return to full-spectrum operations in a peacetime 
environment, and the alignment of military forces to fulfill 
two primary strategic demands: rotational presence and 
contingency availability. Under sequestration-level funding, 
however, the military 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. The committee will continue to monitor the impact 
of sequestration as required under the Budget Control Act of 
2011 (Public Law 112-25) into the foreseeable future.

                            Force Readiness

    The declining state of force readiness remains the 
committee's highest priority. The committee will continue to 
examine the readiness of deployed personnel supporting ongoing 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, in addition 
to the ability of the services to conduct full-spectrum combat 
missions should the need arise and to maintain capabilities to 
posture the force in the decades to come. The committee will 
also closely monitor the impacts of sequestration on 
operational tempo and current readiness shortfalls in 
equipment, personnel, and training to include flying hours, 
steaming days, and full-spectrum training miles. In support of 
this effort, the committee held hearings on the potential 
financial implications of another round of base closure and 
realignment actions, the Navy's readiness posture, Army and 
Marine Corps reset, Air Force reductions in force structure, 
the civilian workforce, and U.S. force posture in the Pacific 
Area of Responsibility. The committee also examined the impact 
of budget cuts to the Department of Defense and held a series 
of classified briefings for both members of the committee and 
non-committee members on the resulting challenges in 
maintaining readiness.
    The committee noted that during the first quarter of the 
previous fiscal year, overall readiness trends improved for 
non-deployed units across the force, including equipment 
availability and condition, personnel, and training in fiscal 
year 2013. However, the impacts of sequestration and top-line 
budget reductions challenged readiness in the latter portion of 
the year across almost all readiness areas. The committee found 
that these shortfalls present a concerning increase in national 
security risk which poses challenges to planning and executing 
emergent contingencies. Specifically, the committee notes the 
cancellation of 6 Navy deployments, and 2 additional deferred, 
the grounding of 17 Air Force fighter squadrons, the 
cancellation of 7 Army combat training center rotations, the 
cancellation and de-scoping of multiple multilateral and joint 
exercises, and the acute impact of civilian personnel 
furloughs. The committee will continue to monitor these trends 
during the remaining congressional session.
    To better understand the unique challenges sequestration 
presents to the readiness of the total force, in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directs 
the Government Accountability Office to review readiness trends 
and risks within the military departments, the Department as a 
whole, and the geographic combatant commands. The committee 
also proposed several 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. Additionally, the committee conducted 
hearings, site visits, and briefings focused on how these 
trends impact planned force structure and resource allocations 
as well as possible future force structure reductions mandated 
by the Strategic Choices and Management Review completed by the 
Department in July 2013.
    With the ongoing drawdown of operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, the committee anticipates a continuing 
realignment of funds from the Department's Overseas Contingency 
Operations budget to the operation and maintenance base budgets 
to better represent normalized budget requirements, to 
accommodate training across the full spectrum of conflict, and 
to reset war-torn equipment. However, the committee remains 
deeply concerned about the viability of fully resetting the 
force if sequestration runs the full 10-year course. To address 
these issues, H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, would require the Department of Defense 
to examine closely its Afghan retrograde logistics chain, 
encourage smarter use of resources by examining the logistics 
roles and missions of the military departments and the Defense 
Logistics Agency, and provide additional resources for reset 
and reconstitution. The committee will continue to monitor the 
Services' compliance with this requirement as it monitors the 
reset strategies to repair, recapitalize, and replace equipment 
used in ongoing operations and progress toward complete 
reconstitution of prepositioned stocks. The committee believes 
that full reset remains at risk in a constrained budget 
environment. Subsequently, the committee will provide rigorous 
oversight of ongoing property accountability and retrograde 
efforts aimed at returning equipment with remaining military 
value to home station. Further, the committee will continue to 
monitor the disposition of non-standard equipment returning 
from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to ensure that 
important items are incorporated into units' tables of 
equipment, are budgeted for and sustained properly, and that 
items no longer of military utility are disposed of in the most 
cost-effective manner possible.
    The committee found that while readiness has largely 
remained steady for deployed or next-to-deploy forces, 
specifically within the Army, this readiness has continued to 
be at the expense of non-deployed ground-force units. The 
committee remains concerned about the number of non-deployed 
units reporting that they are not ready for combat operations, 
or would need additional time, personnel, and equipment to 
prepare for deployment, and intends to hold additional hearings 
on how additional force structure changes or budget cuts would 
further exacerbate force readiness levels. While the Army's 
overseas contingency budget request decreased in fiscal year 
2014, the base budget saw a slight increase to support the 
reset of equipment that has been damaged or worn out through 10 
years of high demand, and also to support increased home-
station training for full-spectrum operations as the Army 
commits fewer units to combat operations. However, 
sequestration has challenged this effort and delayed expected 
improvements in readiness across the Army.
    Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of the Army 
reset process. However, the committee remains concerned about 
the Army's ability to absorb another round of sequestration-
driven reductions without impacting reset needed for current 
operations and those likely to be undertaken in the future and 
intends to hold hearings on the issue. The committee also found 
through several briefings and hearings that readiness 
shortfalls are especially prevalent within the National Guard 
and Reserve Components. While these shortfalls are expected to 
stabilize if sequestration is avoided in fiscal year 2014, 
further cuts in funding could seriously challenge the ability 
of the Reserve Component to remain operationally ready. To 
address this trend in both the Active and Reserve Components, 
H.R. 3304 provides additional 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 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 only 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 during 
Operation Northern Watch following Operation Desert Storm, or 
even more recently with simultaneous operations in Libya. This 
will be particularly problematic for the Air Guard and 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.
    Despite the drawdown in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, Navy operational tempo is expected to remain high, 
as demand for naval assets continues to increase as a result of 
the rebalance to the Pacific and other regional commands. The 
committee remains concerned about the size of the 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. 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 the Government Accountability Office review 
the Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface 
combatant ship material readiness. Additionally, H.R. 3304 
includes 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.
    The committee has also monitored the impacts of higher 
operational tempo and sequestration on the Marine Corps and its 
missions. The committee has closely monitored the Marine Corps' 
reset operation to replace and refurbish equipment and vehicles 
damaged in wartime operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, specifically combat vehicles, 
the Armored Amphibious Vehicle, rotary-wing aircraft, and the 
repair and refurbishment of communications equipment and crew-
served weapons as well as its collective training activities 
and the resumption of the Unit Deployment Program which remains 
challenged as a result of sequestration. Through hearings and 
site visits, the committee expressed concern about the Marine 
Corps' ability to reset its force in a budget-constrained 
environment as well as its ability to meet the current one 
major contingency operation construct with an end strength 
below the 186,800 Marines recommended by the Force Posture 
Review and the proposed retirement of two additional amphibious 
ships in the President's budget request. To ensure that the 
Marine Corps remains ready for current operations, H.R. 1960, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as 
passed by the House, contained additional resources for the 
growth of the Marine Security Guard Program in response to 
events in Benghazi, Libya, the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force constitution in Rota, Spain, and for training 
days and exercises.

                      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. H.R. 
3304, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 
included provisions that would extend authorities for premium 
pay and allowances, benefits and gratuities for deployed 
civilians. The committee has also continued to closely monitor 
the implementation of the each military department's 
efficiencies initiatives, including the Department's Strategic 
Choices and Management Review, which focuses on the civilian 
workforce. These initiatives have led to a civilian hiring 
freeze for all military departments as well as significant 
personnel reductions which started in 2010 and remain in 
effect.
    The committee focused significant oversight efforts on the 
civilian furlough decision announced by the Secretary of 
Defense on May 14, 2013, imposing an 11-day furlough (later 
decreased to 6 days) on the civilian workforce. The committee 
remains concerned about the effects of the furlough and Federal 
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. Such oversight 
efforts will continue for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

                         Energy and Environment


Energy Security

    The committee conducted vigorous oversight of the 
Department'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 
opportunities 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. Likewise, the committee 
report directed and the the committee subsequently 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. H.R. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2014, also 
includes several provisions focused on alternative fuel and 
installation energy specifically.

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. H.R. 3304, 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 
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 of Fiscal Year 2014, the committee continues 
oversight regarding the Department of Defense's ability to 
operate in the Arctic, directing a roadmap for 2020-30, 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.
    As further directed by the committee report, 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.

                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 impacts to 
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 rebalance effort in the Pacific. 
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2014, includes a provision that would restrict 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); mater plans for the 
Marine Corps distributed laydown on Guam and Hawaii; and, a 
coordinated Federal agencies plan to provide public 
infrastructure on Guam. H.R. 3304 would provide several 
exceptions to the restrictions authorizing 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 for support of the realignment 
of Marine Corps assets to Guam. H.R. 3304 also includes 
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.
    The committee also assessed the Department of Defense's 
request for an additional round of Base Closure and Realignment 
(BRAC). After contemplating information provided by the 
Department of Defense in support of its request for an 
additional round of BRAC, H.R. 3304 included language stating 
that nothing in the Act shall be construed to authorize a 
future BRAC round. In addition, H.R. 3304 reduced the budget 
request for Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance by $8.0 
million, the funding requested by the Department to develop 
recommendations and manage a new BRAC round.
    The committee was also concerned about the use of host 
nation funding sources on military construction projects and 
potential abuses to this program that have occurred over the 
last several years. H.R. 3304 included a requirement to obtain 
a specific congressional authorization to use host nation 
funding in support of projects in excess of the military 
construction authority provided in section 2805 of title 10, 
United States Code.

                   Military Construction Programming

    The committee continued its efforts focused on construction 
programming to provide combatant commanders limited authority 
to rapidly implement contingency construction to address 
emerging construction requirements. H.R. 3304, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, contains a 
provision that would authorize the use of operations and 
maintenance funds for contingency construction.
    The committee continues to support initiatives to 
streamline existing military construction programming 
authorities and H.R. 3304 would expand the authority for 
military laboratories to implement construction projects and 
require local installation security assessments to determine 
the appropriate level of anti-terrorism/force protection 
criteria to insert in future construction projects. Finally, 
H.R. 3304 would delete certain outdated reporting requirement 
previously provided to Congress.

          Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal

    The real property management process requires extensive 
oversight to maintain more than $810.0 billion in 
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $50.0 billion, or 
nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. To 
ensure proper oversight of this real property inventory, the 
committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 expressed 
concern about the extensive use of existing leasing authorities 
and requested the Comptroller General of the United States to 
assess the magnitude of Department of Defense leasing efforts. 
The committee report also included a requirement for the 
Comptroller General of the United States 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, 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.
    The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense 
facility sustainment accounts and found that significant 
shortfalls need to be addressed to manage basic services. H.R. 
3304 increased funding to these accounts to address critical 
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. H.R. 3304, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would provide 
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 (Public 
Law 112-25) on end strength drawdown 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 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, two 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.

                           Military Benefits

    The committee continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the first 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, to recommend no change to current law, which 
would allow a 1.8 percent raise in basic pay during fiscal year 
2014 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. 
Consistent with the position of the House, H.R. 3304, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 
neither affirms or rejects the President's decision. However, 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-103) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 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. 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.

                       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.

         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 
health 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 on Military Personnel 
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 on Military 
Personnel received a briefing from the Defense Center of 
Excellence on Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
    On November 15, 2013, the committee 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.

                      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 congressionally 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 DOD 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, would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
complete implementation of the Healthcare Artifact and Image 
Management Solution (HAIMS) within 180 days following enactment 
of the Act.

  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 will continue to provide 
oversight of these vitally important programs in the second 
session of the 113th Congress.

                 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 committee 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 committee is 
expected to continue its active oversight of POW/MIA issues.

                     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. 
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;
    (9) Require both the Secretary of Defense and the 
independent panel established in the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA 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.

                          Wounded Warrior Care

    The committee devoted substantial attention on the adequacy 
of the Department of Defense 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 monitor, 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.
    On September 17, 2013, the committee 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.

                  MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES


                                Overview

    During the 113th Congress, particular attention has been 
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 to 
support 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 with 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 China and 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 focused on oversight of the Army and Marine 
Corps' ambitious and evolving plans to recapitalize their 
entire fleets of heavy and medium-weight armored combat 
vehicles, including the M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting 
Vehicles, Stryker Combat Vehicles, the Expeditionary Fighting 
Vehicle, the Marine Personnel Carrier program, upgrades for 
Light Armored Vehicles, upgrades to Paladin artillery systems, 
and replacement of Army M113 series 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 that stay ahead of the evolving anti-vehicle 
threat posed by improvised explosive devices and advances in 
anti-tank guided missiles. In addition to ensuring 
modernization of existing armored vehicles, the committee 
continued aggressive efforts to oversee and shape the evolving 
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program and the follow-on effort to 
the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the Amphibious Combat 
Vehicle (ACV) through formal activities to include hearings, 
briefings, official correspondence, and senior level meetings.
    The committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces, and the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces has 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, 
and 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 and the Congressional Budget 
Office to conduct continuous oversight and evaluation of major 
development programs as necessary. These oversight efforts also 
included official hearings, site visits, close coordination 
with Army and Marine Corps leadership, and careful scrutiny 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. The 
committee also believes that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) may 
help to mitigate some of the risk to the industrial base, but 
believes FMS alone will not be enough to ensure that the ABCT 
industrial base is maintained at viable levels in the near 
term.
    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 America's heavy armored 
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, would direct 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.

            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, 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 the 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 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. The 
committee remains concerned over potential impacts of 
sequestration on the JLTV program.
    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.

                         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, continued to note the importance of these 
platforms, as well as indicated that they will likely continue 
to be operated at high operational tempos, in very challenging 
environments. The committee has highlighted the need to 
continue to upgrade and reset this 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 future force program for aviation. In particular, the 
committee has focused on the Army's restructured acquisition 
plan resulting from the cancellation of the Armed 
Reconnaissance Helicopter, 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, would direct an additional $75.0 million for 
the LUH program.

                      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 results in a network-enabled, rather than a network-
dependent, Army.

            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'') clothing and 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; improved uniforms; and management of 
these associated niche industrial bases. The committee engaged 
with the Joint Staff and the military services to coordinate 
requirements for these individual equipment programs and has 
encouraged joint programs wherever possible.
    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.

                   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 April 17, 2013. 
The Navy witness testified that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are 
reaching 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 18 aircraft in 2023. The Air 
Force witness also testified to an Air Force requirement for 
1,900 fighter aircraft, which does not now reveal a strike 
fighter shortfall in projected force structure through 2030. To 
maintain this 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. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, authorized the budget 
request of 21 EA-18G aircraft for the Navy and the requested 
procurement to extend the life of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B 
fleets, and included an increase of $75.0 million for advance 
procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 
2015. H.R. 1960 also authorized the entire Air Force request 
for modifications to its A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35 
fleets. Additionally, H.R. 1960 authorized the budget request 
of $5.5 billion for 29 F-35 aircraft and $1.9 billion for F-35 
development.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize 21 EA-18G aircraft for the 
Navy and the requested funding to extend the life of the legacy 
F/A-18 and AV-8B fleets, and include an increase of $75.0 
million for advance procurement of additional F/A-18E/F 
aircraft in fiscal year 2015. H.R. 3304 would also authorize 
the Air Force request for modifications to its A-10, F-15, F-
16, F-22A, and F-35 fleets. Additionally, H.R. 3304 would 
authorize $5.5 billion for 29 F-35 aircraft and $2.7 billion 
for F-35 development.

                       F-35/Joint Strike Fighter

    During the 113th Congress, the committee continued 
oversight of the F-35 program.
    Before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on 
April 17, 2013 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing testified that the new F-
35 acquisition baseline reflects positive restructuring actions 
taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) since 2010, including 
more time and funding for development and deferred procurement 
of more than 400 aircraft to future years. The GAO witness 
noted that overall the program progressed on several fronts 
during 2012 to further improve the current outlook. As examples 
of this progress, the GAO witness reported that the program 
achieved seven of 10 key management objectives and made 
substantial progress on one other, but two objectives on 
aircraft deliveries and a corrective management plan were not 
met. Additionally, he testified that the F-35 development test 
program substantially met expectations with some revisions to 
flight test plans and made considerable progress addressing key 
technical risks. Software management practices and some output 
measures improved, although deliveries to test continued to lag 
behind plans. The GAO witness also noted that manufacturing and 
supply processes also improved indicators such as factory 
throughput, labor efficiency, and quality measures were 
positive, and aircraft deliveries are accelerating. However, 
the GAO witness also testified that development of the F-35's 
block 3.0 software, which provides full warfighting capability, 
is one of the program's highest risk areas.
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House on June 14, 2013, 
would authorize the budget request of $5.5 billion for 
procurement of 29 F-35s, and $1.9 billion for F-35 research, 
development, test and evaluation. H.R. 1960 also included a 
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish an independent team of subject matter experts to 
review the F-35's software development program and assess 
whether the software development program will be completed 
according to schedule and to provide recommendations for 
improving the software development program.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize $7.8 billion for F-35 
development and procurement and included the House provision 
directing an F-35 software development review.

                           Aviation Programs

    Through its oversight activities, the committee noted that 
the B-52 strategic radar replacement program replaces 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.
    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. 
However, the committee is concerned with the current plan to 
only fund and modernize 28 of 76 total aircraft with CONECT 
capability. The committee reminds the Secretary that section 
137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires the Secretary to maintain 
all B-52 aircraft in a common capability configuration. 
Realizing that the committee in the future may have to address 
not retaining the nuclear capability for a certain number of B-
52s in order to comply with New START requirements, the 
committee intends to provide no flexibility for not maintaining 
B-52 aircraft in a common conventional capability 
configuration. A dissimilar capability configuration adds 
complexity to supply chain management, aircrew certification, 
training and employment, and would inherently complicate 
combatant commander operational planning and execution by 
having to account for dissimilar aircraft capabilities. The 
Joint Explanatory Statement associated with H.R. 3304 provides 
flexibility for the Air Force to demodify nuclear capability 
from B-52 aircraft, but requires the Secretary of the Air Force 
to maintain a common conventional capability configuration for 
the B-52 fleet of aircraft.
    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. In H.R. 1960, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 as 
passed by the House, the committee recommended funding 
increases for C-130H propulsion system propeller upgrades, 
propulsion system engine upgrades, and for continued 
procurement C-130 AMP kits and installation onto C-130H 
aircraft. The Joint Explanatory Statement for H.R. 3304 
supports all of the committee's initiatives for the legacy C-
130H fleet of aircraft.
    The committee supports multi-year procurement authority for 
the C-130J and E-2D aircraft in both H.R. 1960 and the 
associated conference joint explanatory statement, which will 
save the Department of Defense over $1.0 billion dollars in 
procurement costs.
    Through its oversight activities, 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 regarding KC-46, 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.
    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. H.R. 1960 included a provision that would 
require the Secretary of the Navy to demonstrate unmanned 
autonomous aerial refueling with the X-47B UCAS aircraft, and 
another provision that would prohibit the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from 
approving a milestone A technology development contract award 
for the UCLASS program until 30 days after the Under Secretary 
certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 
software and system engineering designs for the control system 
and connectivity segment and the aircraft carrier segment of 
the UCLASS system can achieve, at a low level of integration 
risk, successful compatibility and operability with the air 
vehicle segment planned for selection at milestone A contract 
award. H.R. 3304 did not include the UCAS provision, but did 
include 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.

                         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. The Navy's budget request was for 
eight new-construction battle-force ships, an increase of one 
ship from the fiscal year 2013 Future Years Defense Plan 
(FDYP). When combined with the proposed early decommissioning 
of seven cruisers and two amphibious ships, the Navy is 
projecting a 2020 force of 255 ships. This available force 
structure contrasts the Navy required projection in 2013 of 308 
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.
    CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford class of aircraft 
carriers. Technologies inserted into this ship, have challenged 
the Navy to maintain cost controls on the lead ship. To address 
these cost issues, H.R. 3304, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 also continues its oversight of the 
Littoral Combat Ship program. H.R. 3304 includes a provision 
that would fence funding for 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.

    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 focused 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 continued 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. As a result of committee oversight activities, the 
committee expects 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 first session of the 113th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on 
April 23, 2013, on unmanned aerial systems. Witnesses for this 
hearing included the Director of Unmanned Warfare & 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense; the United States Air Force Director 
of Bases, Ranges, and Airspace; and the Director of Army 
Aviation. Among other issues, this hearing reviewed the 
Department of Defense budget requests for unmanned aerial 
systems for fiscal year 2014 including the requests for the RQ-
4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems.
    H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, extended Global Hawk 
Block 30 operations for 2 additional years, until December 
2016, and also increased the Air Force budget request by $80.0 
million for six additional MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems.
    H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014, would extend the operation of the Air Force 
Global Hawk Block 30 until December 2014, and would maintain 
critical high altitude ISR capabilities, including manning for 
the Global Hawk Block 30. H.R. 3304 would also increase the MQ-
9 Reaper budget request by $80.0 million.

                        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.

         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 (DOE) and nuclear policies and programs of 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure the safety, security, 
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. 
Particular emphasis has been placed on DOE and DOD 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, on February 28, 
2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing 
``Nuclear Security: Actions, Accountability, and Reform''. This 
hearing continued the subcommittee's oversight of the DOE 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 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 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 DOE and DOD 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 
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 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 
held a classified briefing on the same topic at the 
subcommittee-level. Finally, on September 10, 2013, the 
subcommittee 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.
    The committee included several legislative provisions 
related to nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security 
enterprise in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House. Among others, 
this includes provisions that would provide congressional input 
regarding nuclear force structure decisions, strengthen 
interagency coordination on nuclear weapons decision-making, 
provide momentum and increase congressional oversight to 
efforts to reform security practices at DOE and NNSA, 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.

                            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, on May 8, 2013, 
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing regarding 
the ``Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Missile Defense Programs''.
    In addition to the hearing, the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces 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, would direct 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 would increase funding for the development 
of a new kill vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
program as well as provide 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.

                        National Security Space

    In the 113th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the Department'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 March 5, 2013, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces received a briefing from the Commander of the 
Air Force Space Command, the Director of the National 
Reconnaissance Office, and the National Intelligence Officer 
for Science and Technology regarding national security space 
programs and foreign threats to U.S. space systems.
    On April 25, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Fiscal Year 2013 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 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.
    Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also 
participated in several congressional delegations to oversee 
the national security space program. The members traveled to a 
National Reconnaissance Office ground station, the National 
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, the Army Space and 
Missile Defense Command headquarters, Vandenberg Air Force 
Base, the Air Force Space and Missiles System Center, and 
several industry facilities.
    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.

                   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. 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 briefing 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; and a 
hearing on ``Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request for Department of Defense (DOD) Science and 
Technology Programs'' on April 16, 2013.
    The committee included several additional legislative 
provisions related to science and technology in H.R. 1960, as 
passed by the House, to include: extension of authority to 
award prizes for advanced technology achievements; extension of 
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 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.

                     Cyber Operations Capabilities

    Cyber operations have taken on an increasingly important 
role in military operations as well as national security writ 
large. Accordingly, the committee continued to closely 
scrutinize the Department'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 
full committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence and 
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 scrutinize 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 held a related hearing on March 13, 2013 on 
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization 
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force.'' In addition to 
formal hearings, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities held cyber operations briefings on 
March 20, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
    The committee included several legislative provisions 
related to cyber operations capabilities in H.R. 1960, 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 United States Cyber Command.

                         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 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

    During the first session of the 113th Congress, the 
committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in 
preparation for the fiscal year 2014 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 April 11, 2013, 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 2014.
    In addition to these hearings, the committee held posture 
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of 
the military departments. On April 12, 2013, The Honorable 
Michael B. Donley, 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 United States Air Force's 
portion of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. On April 16, 
2013, the committee convened a hearing to receive testimony 
from The Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; and 
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, on the 
United States Navy's portion of the fiscal year 2014 budget 
request. On April 25, 2013, 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 United States 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 in their 
respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began with 
testimony from General C. Robert Kehler, Commander of U.S. 
Strategic Command; and Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, Commander of 
U.S. Pacific Command, on March 5, 2013. This hearing was 
followed on March 6, 2013 by General James N. Mattis, Commander 
of U.S. Central Command; Admiral William H. McRaven, Commander 
of U.S. Special Operations Command; and General William M. 
Fraser III, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, who 
testified on their commands' budget requests for fiscal year 
2014. On March 15, 2013, the committee received testimony from 
Admiral James G. Stavridis, Commander of U.S. European Command; 
and General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, 
who testified on their combatant commands' fiscal year 2014 
budget requests. On March 20, 2013, the committee heard 
testimony from General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., Commander of 
U.S. Northern Command; and General John F. Kelly, Commander of 
U.S. Southern Command, who testified on their combatant 
commands' budget requests.
    This year the committee also convened a hearing to receive 
testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense 
priorities for the fiscal year 2014 National Defense 
Authorization Act, which took place on May 8, 2013.
    This year the committee met several times to receive 
testimony on the effects of budget sequestration on Department 
of Defense. On February 13, 2013, the committee received 
testimony from Ashton Carter, Deputy Secretary of Defense; 
General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff; General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the U.S. 
Army; Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations; 
General Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air 
Force; General James F. Amos, Commandant of the U.S. Marine 
Corps; and General Frank J. Grass, Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau, to review the impacts of a Continuing Resolution and 
sequestration on defense. On August 1, 2013, the committee 
received testimony from Ashton Carter, Deputy Secretary of 
Defense; and Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the initial conclusions formed by 
the Defense Strategic Choices and Management Review. On 
September 18, 2013, the committee received testimony from 
General Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air 
Force; General James F. Amos, Commandant of the U.S. Marine 
Corps; General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the U.S. 
Army; and Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, 
on the services' plans for sequestration in fiscal year 2014 
and their perspectives on the Strategic Choices and Management 
Review.
    Additionally, the committee held a series of hearings in 
accordance with its legislative and oversight roles which 
focused on the United States' ongoing military operations and 
related strategies. The committee convened a hearing on 
February 27, 2013, to receive testimony from outside experts on 
the transition in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
pertaining to drawdown of U.S. operations. Dr. Catherine Dale, 
Congressional Research Service; General (retired) Jack Keane, 
former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army; Mr. Anthony 
Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies; and 
Lieutenant General (retired) David Barno, Center for a New 
American Security, appeared before the committee to testify on 
this important matter. On April 17, 2013, the committee met to 
receive testimony from General Joseph Dunford, Commander of the 
International Security and Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan, on recent developments in Afghanistan. On July 17, 
2013, the committee received testimony from Mr. Elliot Abrams, 
Council for Foreign Relations; Ambassador Frederic C. Hof, 
Atlantic Council; and Mona Yacoubian, Pathways to Progress, on 
the Security Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and 
implications for U.S. National Security and policy options. On 
September 10, 2013, the committee received testimony from Chuck 
Hagel, Secretary of Defense; General Martin Dempsey, Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and John Kerry, Secretary of 
State, on the proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in 
Syria. On September 19, 2013, the committee received testimony 
from The Honorable Michele Flournoy, Center for a New American 
Security; General (retired) Jack Keane, Former Vice Chief of 
Staff of the U.S. Army, Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, American 
Academy of Diplomacy; and Ms. Clare Lockhart, Institute for 
State Effectiveness, on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan after 
2014.
    The committee also met on January 23, 2013, to convene a 
hearing on the review of sexual misconduct at Lackland Air 
Force Base. The committee received testimony from Dr. David 
Lisak, Forensic Consultant; Chief Master Sergeant (retired) 
Cindy McNally, Service Women's Action Network; Ms. Jennifer 
Norris, Protect Our Defenders; General Edward A. Rice, Jr., 
Commander of Air Education and Training Command; and General 
Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. On 
February 14, 2013, the committee received testimony from Mr. 
Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Lieutenant General Terry 
Wolff, Director for Strategic Plans & Policy (J5); and Ms. 
Janet St. Laurent, Managing Director for Defense Capabilities 
and Management Team at U.S. Government Accountability Office, 
on the framework for Building Partnership Capacity Programs and 
Authorities. On July 10, 2013, the committee held a joint 
hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive 
testimony on the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs 
collaboration to assist service members returning to civilian 
life. Witnesses were The Honorable Frank Kendall, Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics; The Honorable Jessica L. Wright, Acting Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; The Honorable 
Jonathan Woodson, MD, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs and Director, TRICARE Management Activity; Mr. Stephen 
W. Warren, Acting Assistant Secretary for Information and 
Technology for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. 
Robert A. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health for the Department 
of Veterans Affairs; and Mr. Danny Pummill, Deputy 
Undersecretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs. On 
October 29, 2013, the committee received testimony from Mr. Dov 
Zakheim, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Mr. 
Pierre Chao, Center for International and Strategic Studies; 
Mr. Paul Francis, Managing Director of the Acquisition and 
Sourcing Management for the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; and Mr. Moshe Schwartz, Congressional Research Service, 
on 25 years of acquisition reform.
    In 2013, the committee began a series of hearings on the 
U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. On July 24, 2013, 
the committee received testimony from Dr. Michael Auslin, 
American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Patrick Cronin, Center for a 
New American Security; Admiral (ret.) Gary Roughead, Hoover 
Institution; and Dr. James Shinn, Princeton University, on the 
rebalance to the Asia-Pacific Region and implications for U.S. 
National Security. On November 20, 2013, the committee received 
testimony from The Honorable William A. Reinsch, Chairman of 
the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; The 
Honorable Dennis C. Shea, Vice Chairman of the U.S.-China 
Economic and Security Review Commission; Ms. Carolyn 
Bartholomew, Commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and 
Security Review Commission; and Dr. Larry M. Wortzel, 
Commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission, on the 2013 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China 
Economic and Security Review Commission.

                            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 three 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 two years earlier.
    The committee noted that as of the date of this memo, 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.

          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, as passed by the House, 
and H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014. 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 DOD 
elements part of the intelligence community. Details of the 
germane provisions are reported elsewhere in this report in the 
following sections: Global War on Terrorism; Addressing 
Emerging Threats; Intelligence; Information Technology and 
Business Systems; Directed Energy Programs; Investments in 
Future Capabilities in Science and Technology; Cyber Operations 
Capabilities; and Information Operations. In addition, H.R. 
1960, as passed by the House, and H.R. 3304 also 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 DOD 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.

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel


Transition Assistance

    The committee 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 committee held 
several meetings with the DOD and the services to monitor their 
implementation plans. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
met in an open hearing on April 24, 2013 entitled ``Status of 
Implementation of the Requirements of the Veterans Opportunity 
to Work (VOW) 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 committee 
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 over the next fiscal year.

Disability Evaluation System and ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''

    The committee continued to provide oversight and expressed 
concern about the backlog of cases in the Integrated Disability 
Evaluation System. H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2014, as passed by the House, contained 
legislation that required the Department of Defense to consider 
improvements to the system and to submit a report to the 
Committees on Armed Services in the House and Senate containing 
their recommendations.
    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 rollout 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 members individual expression of those 
beliefs. The provision amended section 533 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239). The provision would expand the accommodation and 
prohibition against adverse personnel action based on a members 
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.

                       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 subcommittee 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 on Readiness 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 committee 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 Subcommittee on Readiness held 
a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces on ``Ensuring Navy Surface Force 
Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources,'' 
specifically considering how operational demands and 
sequestration impact the Navy's ability to conduct 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 regards 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 
receive pay and allowances in spite of the United States 
Government shutdown of 2013.

             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 request for fiscal year 2014.
    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 1st, 2013, Ensuring 
Navy Surface Force Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance 
Resources.
    In addition to formal 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.

                    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.
    Regarding subcommittee briefings, the subcommittee 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 President Obama'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 Sept 
10, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing 
on the annual assessments of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
stockpile. On Sept 18, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a 
classified briefing on military requirements for conventional 
prompt global strike capability.

              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; 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 acquisition strategies; or gaps 
in current or future capabilities that relate to acquisition 
programs; or the allocation of acquisition resources. This 
would also include 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 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; and April 26, 2013: Fiscal Year 2014 Army 
Modernization Programs.
    In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities 
regarding the budget request, the subcommittee conducted 
oversight hearings on the following topics: October 23, 2013: 
Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on 
Acquisition and Modernization, and December 17, 2013: The State 
of Army Aviation and the Effects of Sequester on Aviation Force 
Structure and Modernization.
    In addition to hearings, the subcommittee held various 
briefings and events to conduct oversight including four 
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; and October 9, 2013: 
Program Updates on Army and Marine Corps Body Armor, Combat 
Helmets, and Small Arms Programs. The subcommittee also held 
one unclassified briefing on February 14, 2013: Joint Strike 
Fighter 101. The subcommittee also met informally to gather 
information on the following topics: February 13, 2013: 
Adversary Fifth Generation Threats and the Value of Stealth; 
and on March 12, 2013: Acquisition 101 by the Government 
Accountability Office.
    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, that was included in H.R. 1960, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House. 
The legislation 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 on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
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.

              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.

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.

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.

Quadrennial Defense Review

    On February 26, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing to 
receive information about the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review 
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.
                              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            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.

                         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. 113-45--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. 113-48--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. 113-50--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Women in Service Reviews. July 24, 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. 113-54--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. 113-63--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Biodefense: Worldwide 
Threats and Countermeasure Efforts for the Department of 
Defense. Oct. 11, 2013.

                             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