Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


114th Congress     }                                     {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session        }                                     {     114-885

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



 
  REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE 
                             114TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 December 22, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                           POWERS AND DUTIES


                               Background

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

                    Constitutional Powers and Duties

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

                      House Rules on Jurisdiction

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

           Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight

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

                            COMMITTEE RULES

    The committee held its organizational meeting on January 
14, 2015, and adopted the following rules governing rules and 
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full 
committee and its subcommittees. (H.A.S.C. 114-1; 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, 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. In 
        addition the committee will be responsible for 
        intelligence policy (including coordination of military 
        intelligence programs), national intelligence programs, 
        and Department of Defense elements that are part of the 
        Intelligence Community. 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 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, the Cooperative Threat 
        Reduction program, and Department of Energy national 
        security programs.
          Subcommittee on 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.
          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 disclose 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 Confidential 
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 Confidential 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 Confidential 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 odd-numbered year the 
Committee shall submit to the House a report on its activities, 
pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

             COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                             Full Committee

    Pursuant to H. Res. 6 (agreed to on January 6, 2015), H. 
Res. 7 (agreed to on January 6, 2015), H. Res. 29 (agreed to on 
January 13, 2015), H. Res. 30 (agreed to on January 13, 2015), 
and H. Res. 165 (agreed to on March 24, 2015), the following 
Members have served on the Committee on Armed Services in the 
114th Congress:

  WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, 
          Texas, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking MemberALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RICK LARSEN, Washington              ROB BISHOP, Utah
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JACKIE SPEIER, California            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOAQUIN CASTRO,\3\ Texas             ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii                CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
BETO O'ROURKE, Texas                 JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               STEVEN M. PALAZZO,\1\ Mississippi
MARK TAKAI,\4\ Hawaii                MO BROOKS, Alabama
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida                 RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska               PAUL COOK, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
PETE AGUILAR, California             BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
                                     JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
                                     BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
                                     SAM GRAVES, Missouri
                                     RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
                                     ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
                                     MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
                                     STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
                                     THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
                                     STEVE RUSSELL,\2\ Oklahoma

----------
\1\Mr. Palazzo resigned from the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\2\Mr. Russell was elected to the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\3\Mr. Castro took a leave of absence from the committee on July 6, 
2016.
\4\Mr. Takai died on July 20, 2016.
            SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The following subcommittees were established at the 
committee's organizational meeting on January 14, 2015.

           Subcommittee on 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.

   JOE WILSON, South Carolina, 
             Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO,\1\ Texas             RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair
BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska               DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
PETE AGUILAR, California             MO BROOKS, Alabama
                                     BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
                                     ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York

----------
\1\Mr. Castro took a leave of absence from the committee on July 6, 
2016.

                   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.

 JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada, Chairman

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JACKIE SPEIER, California            THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey, 
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           ViceChair
BETO O'ROURKE, Texas                 ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
                                     PAUL COOK, California
                                     STEPHEN KNIGHT, California

                       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
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
JOAQUIN CASTRO,\3\ Texas             ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York, Vice 
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            Chair
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii                MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
BETO O'ROURKE, Texas                 CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               STEVEN M. PALAZZO,\1\ Mississippi
                                     RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
                                     BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
                                     SAM GRAVES, MISSOURI
                                     STEVE RUSSELL,\2\ Oklahoma

----------
\1\Mr. Palazzo resigned from the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\2\Mr. Russell was assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness on Mar. 
24, 2015.
\3\Mr. Castro took a leave of absence from the committee on July 6, 
2016.

             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 and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, 
             Chairman

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      STEVEN M. PALAZZO,\1\ Mississippi
RICK LARSEN, Washington              BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaNCAN HUNTER, California, Vice 
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          Chair
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii                VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida                 PAUL COOK, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
                                     JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
                                     RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
                                     STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
                                     STEVE RUSSELL,\2\ Oklahoma

----------
\1\Mr. Palazzo resigned from the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\2\Mr. Russell was assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces on Mar. 24, 2015.

                    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, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and 
Department of Energy national security programs.

  MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman

JIM COOPER, Tennessee                TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Vice Chair
RICK LARSEN, Washington              MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           MO BROOKS, Alabama
MARK TAKAI,\1\ Hawaii                JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska               J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
PETE AGUILAR, California             ROB BISHOP, Utah
                                     MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
                                     JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana

----------
\1\Mr. Takai died on July 20, 2016.

              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
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
MARK TAKAI,\1\ Hawaii                STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida                 THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
                                     JOE WILSON, South Carolina

----------
\1\Mr. Takai died on July 20, 2016.

              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.

    VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri, 
            Chairwoman

JACKIE SPEIER, California            JEFF MILLER, Florida
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida                 AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
                                     MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona

                            COMMITTEE STAFF

    By committee resolution adopted at the organizational 
meeting on January 14, 2015, or by authority of the chairman, 
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the 
committee during the 114th Congress:

    Bob Simmons, Staff Director
   Jenness Simler, Deputy Staff 
             Director
Catherine McElroy, General Counsel 
    (resigned December 4, 2015)
 Andrew Peterson, General Counsel 
   (appointed January 11, 2016)
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
  John F. Sullivan, Professional 
           Staff Member
     Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., 
     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 (resigned January 8, 
               2016)
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Cyndi Howard, Security Manager 
     (resigned August 1, 2016)
 Douglas Bush, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Vickie Plunkett, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kevin Gates, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Mike Casey, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned January 8, 2016)
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
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned October 1, 2015)
 John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
    William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff 
              Member
Peter Villano, Professional Staff 
              Member
      Leonor Tomero, Counsel
 Jamie Lynch, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned January 9, 2015)
Michele Pearce, Counsel (resigned 
          April 7, 2015)
  Catherine Sendak, Professional 
           Staff Member
Michael Amato, Professional Staff 
Member (resigned October 15, 2015)
   Robert J. McAlister, Deputy 
 Spokesman (resigned February 5, 
               2015)
      Christopher J. Bright, 
     Professional Staff Member
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Elizabeth Conrad, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Andrew T. Walter, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Claude Chafin, Communications 
             Director
   Aaron Falk, Clerk (resigned 
        February 12, 2015)
       Tim Morrison, Counsel
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned April 7, 2015)
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Katie Thompson, Security Manager
  Alexander Gallo, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Eric L. Smith, Clerk (resigned 
        September 7, 2015)
  Joe Sangiorgio, Communications 
 Assistant (resigned January 25, 
               2015)
John Noonan, Deputy Communications 
Director (resigned April 20, 2015)
 Colin Bosse, Research Assistant 
    (resigned November 4, 2016)
  Julie Herbert, Clerk (resigned 
          July 24, 2015)
  David Giachetti, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
              Member
    Abigail P. Gage, Research 
  Assistant (resigned April 14, 
               2016)
 Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional 
           Staff Member
Katie Rember, Clerk (resigned May 
             29, 2016)
  Joe Whited, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned April 15, 2016)
    Candace Wagner, Executive 
             Assistant
Michael Miller, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned November 30, 
               2016)
    Alison Lynn, Spokesman and 
  Director of Member Initiatives 
   (appointed January 15, 2015)
Mark Morehouse, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed January 15, 
               2015)
   Nick Mikula, Press Secretary 
   (appointed February 17, 2015)
Michael Tehrani, Clerk (appointed 
   February 23, 2015, resigned 
        February 22, 2016)
 Scott Glabe, Counsel (appointed 
 April 6, 2015, resigned January 
             22, 2016)
Craig Collier, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed May 7, 2015)
Bruce Johnson, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed July 1, 2015)
Daniel Sennott, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed July 1, 2015)
  Mike Gancio, Clerk (appointed 
         August 17, 2015)
Nevada Schadler, Clerk (appointed 
        September 1, 2015)
Andrew Warren, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed October 19, 
               2015)
Margaret Dean, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed November 2, 
               2015)
 Jen Stewart, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed December 7, 
          2015, resigned
        February 15, 2016)
  Bob Daigle, Professional Staff 
Member (appointed January 4, 2016)
Alexis Lasselle Ross, Professional 
Staff Member (appointed January 4, 
               2016)
 Mark Osmack, Research Assistant 
   (appointed January 4, 2016, 
      resigned June 24, 2016
  Katy Quinn, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed February 1, 
               2016)
Britton Burkett, Clerk (appointed 
          March 7, 2016)
    Barron YoungSmith, Counsel 
    (appointed April 11, 2016)
    Matthew Sullivan, Counsel 
    (appointed April 12, 2016)
 Emily Murphy, Counsel (appointed 
           May 2, 2016)
    Anna Waterfield, Research 
Assistant (appointed May 16, 2016)
 Jodi Brignola, Clerk (appointed 
           June 6, 2016)
 Brian Greer, Professional Staff 
Member (appointed October 3, 2016)
 Jason Schmid, Professional Staff 
Member (appointed October 3, 2016)
  Megan Handal, Clerk (appointed 
         November 7, 2016)
Andy Schulman, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed November 15, 
               2016)
Danielle Steitz, Clerk (appointed 
        November 29, 2016)

                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

    A total of 285 meetings and hearings have been held by the 
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the 
114th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and hearings 
follows:

Full Committee....................................................    77
Subcommittees:
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.............    34
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    30
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    27
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................    35
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    42
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................    24
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................    16

                         LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES


                              Public Laws


  Public Law 114-92 (S. 1356)--National Defense Authorization Act for 
                            Fiscal Year 2016

    S. 1356 was introduced on May 14, 2015, by Senator Ron 
Johnson. The bill's title as introduced was, ``A bill to 
clarify that certain provisions of the Border Patrol Agent Pay 
Reform Act of 2014 will not take effect until after the 
Director of the Office of Personnel Management promulgates and 
makes effective regulations relating to such provisions.'' The 
bill was passed without amendment by unanimous consent in the 
Senate on May 14, 2015, and was held at the desk in the House.
    On May 15, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016, and on June 18, 2015, the Senate passed its version of 
H.R. 1735. The House and Senate convened a conference committee 
to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the 
bill. On September 29, 2015, Chairman Mac Thornberry filed the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1735 (H. Rept. 114-270) in 
the House. On October 1, 2015, the House agreed to the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, and on October 7, 
2015, the conference report was agreed to in the Senate. On 
October 22, 2015, H.R. 1735 was vetoed by the President and was 
returned to the House (H. Doc. 114-70).
    On October 28, 2015, the House passed H.R. 1314, the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, and on October 30, 2015, the 
Senate also passed H.R. 1314. The President signed the bill on 
November 2, 2015. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Public Law 
114-74) did not fund Budget Function 050 to the level requested 
by the President in the fiscal year 2016 budget submission, and 
as agreed to by the conferees and authorized in H.R. 1735.
    The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) was the product of an 
agreement between the House Committee on Armed Services and the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services on H.R. 1735 to conform to 
the funding levels in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The 
agreement included a reduction of $5.1 billion from the level 
authorized in H.R. 1735. The resulting agreement was brought to 
the House floor in the form of an amendment to S. 1356. On 
November 5, 2015, the House suspended the rules and passed S. 
1356, as amended, by a vote of 370-58 (Roll no. 618). On 
November 10, 2015, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to 
S. 1356 by a vote of 91-3 (Record Vote Number: 301). The 
President signed the legislation on November 25, 2015, and it 
became Public Law 114-92.
    Public Law 114-92, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016, did the following: (1) Authorized 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for procurement and for 
research, development, test, and evaluation; (2) Authorized 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for operation and 
maintenance and for working capital funds; (3) Authorized for 
fiscal year 2016: (a) the personnel strength for each Active 
Duty Component of the military departments; (b) the personnel 
strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of 
the Armed Forces; and (c) the military training student loads 
for each of the Active and Reserve Components of the military 
departments; (4) Modified various elements of compensation for 
military personnel and impose certain requirements and 
limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; 
(5) Authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military 
construction and family housing; (6) Authorized appropriations 
for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorized 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Department of 
Energy national security programs; and (8) Authorized 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Maritime 
Administration.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
included the large majority of the findings and recommendations 
resulting from the oversight activities of Committee on Armed 
Services in the previous year, as informed by the experience 
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.

Public Law 114-149 (S. 719)--A bill to rename the Armed Forces Reserve 
 Center in Great Falls, Montana, the Captain John E. Moran and Captain 
             William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center

    S. 719, ``A bill to rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center 
in Great Falls, Montana, the Captain John E. Moran and Captain 
William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center'' was introduced 
on March 11, 2015, by Senator Jon Tester, and was referred to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services. On March 16, 2016, the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services was discharged and the bill 
was passed in the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent. On March 17, 2016, the bill was received in the House 
and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. The 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel and the full committee 
waived consideration of S. 719. On April 18, 2016, Mr. Ryan 
Zinke moved to consider S. 719 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, 387-0, 1 present (Roll 
no. 154). On April 29, 2016, S. 719 was signed by the President 
and became Public Law 114-149.

                  Legislation Vetoed by the President


   H.R. 1735--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

    On April 13, 2015, H.R. 1735, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was introduced by 
Chairman Mac Thornberry and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. On April 29, 2015, the Committee on Armed Services 
held a markup session to consider H.R. 1735. The committee, a 
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1735, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-2. 
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 15, 2015, by 
recorded vote, 269-151 (Roll no. 239). On May 21, 2015, the 
bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders Calendar No. 
99.
    On June 3, 2015, the measure was laid before the Senate by 
unanimous consent. On June 18, 2015, the Senate then struck all 
after the enacting clause, inserted the language of a 
substitute amendment consisting of the Senate passed bill, and 
then passed H.R. 1735 with an amendment by yea-nay vote, 71-25 
(Record Vote Number: 215). On June 25, 2015, Chairman 
Thornberry moved that the House disagree to the Senate 
amendment and request a conference, which was agreed to by 
voice vote. On July 9, 2015, the Senate insisted on the Senate 
amendment and agreed to the request for conference. On 
September 29, 2015, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1735 (H. Rept. 114-270) was filed in the House. On October 1, 
2015, the conference report was agreed to in the House by the 
yeas and nays, 270-156 (Roll no. 532). On October 7, 2015, the 
conference report was agreed to in the Senate, 70-27 (Record 
Vote Number: 277). On October 22, 2015, H.R. 1735 was vetoed by 
the President and was returned to the House (H. Doc. 114-70). 
No further action was taken on H.R. 1735.
    For further action on the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016, please see S. 1356.

             Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress


    S. 2943--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

    S. 2943 was reported to the Senate as an original measure 
by Chairman John McCain on May 18, 2016. The Senate began 
consideration of S. 2943 on May 23, 2016. It passed the Senate 
with amendments by yea-nay vote, 85-13 (Record Vote Number: 98) 
on June 14, 2016. Two days later, S. 2943 was sent to the House 
and held at the desk.
    On July 7, 2016, consideration of S. 2943 was initiated in 
the House pursuant to H. Res. 809. The House struck all after 
the enacting clause in S. 2943 and inserted in lieu thereof the 
provisions of H.R. 4909, as passed the House. Pursuant to the 
provisions of H. Res. 809, Mr. Thornberry moved that the House 
insist upon its amendment, and requested a conference with the 
Senate. On July 14, 2016, the Senate disagreed to the House 
amendment to the Senate bill and agreed to the request for 
conference by unanimous consent. On November 30, 2016, the 
conference report to accompany S. 2943 (H. Rept. 114-840) was 
filed in the House. On December 2, 2016, the conference report 
was agreed to in the House by the yeas and nays, 375-34 (Roll 
no. 600). On December 8, 2016, the conference report was agreed 
to in Senate, 92-7 (Record Vote Number: 159).
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2017 for procurement and for research, development, test, and 
evaluation; (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 
for operation and maintenance and for working capital funds; 
(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2017: (a) the personnel strength 
for each Active Duty Component of the military departments; (b) 
the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each 
Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; and (c) the military 
training student loads for each of the Active and Reserve 
Components of the military departments; (4) Modify various 
elements of compensation for military personnel and impose 
certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in 
the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2017 for military construction and family housing; 
(6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency 
Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 
for the Department of Energy national security programs; and 
(8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for the 
Maritime Administration.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, is a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills 
one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, 
section 8 of the United States Constitution, which grants 
Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to provide and 
maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the government and 
regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of 
Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of 
Defense generally, and over the military application of nuclear 
energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The bill 
includes the large majority of the findings and recommendations 
resulting from the oversight activities of Committee on Armed 
Services in the current year, as informed by the experience 
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.

           Legislation Passed by the House of Representatives


H.R. 3894--To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the prompt 
    notification of State Child Protective Services by military and 
  civilian personnel of the Department of Defense required by law to 
         report suspected instances of child abuse and neglect

    H.R. 3894, ``To amend title 10, United States Code, to 
require the prompt notification of State Child Protective 
Services by military and civilian personnel of the Department 
of Defense required by law to report suspected instances of 
child abuse and neglect'' was introduced on November 3, 2015, 
by Representative Tulsi Gabbard and was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. The Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel and the full committee waived consideration of H.R. 
3894. On February 9, 2016, Representative Elise Stefanik moved 
to consider H.R. 3894 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 February 10, 2016, H.R. 3894 
was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services. No further action has been 
taken on H.R. 3894. However, the conferees included similar 
legislation in section 574 of S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

            H.R. 4298--Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act

    H.R. 4298, the Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act, was 
introduced on December 18, 2015, by Representative Mark E. 
Amodei and was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 September 8, 2016, 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on H.R. 
4298. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs waived consideration 
of H.R. 4298, and on December 7, 2016, Representative Joseph J. 
Heck moved to consider H.R. 4298 under suspension of the rules 
of the House. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
was agreed to by voice vote. On December 8, 2016, H.R. 4298 was 
received in the Senate. No further action has been taken on the 
bill.

   H.R. 4909--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017

    On April 12, 2016, H.R. 4909, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, was introduced by 
Chairman Mac Thornberry and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. On April 27, 2016, the Committee on Armed Services 
held a markup session to consider H.R. 4909. The committee, a 
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 4909, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-2. 
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 18, 2016, by 
recorded vote, 277-147 (Roll no. 216). On May 26, 2016, the 
bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders Calendar No. 
216. For further action on the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2017, please see S. 2943.

      H.R. 5015--Combat-Injured Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2016

    H.R. 5015, the Combat-Injured Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 
2016, was introduced on April 20, 2016, by Representative David 
Rouzer and was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and 
in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 Committee on Armed 
Services waived consideration of H.R. 5015, and on December 5, 
2016, Representative Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, moved to consider H.R. 5015, as amended, under 
suspension of the rules of the House. The motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, as amended, was agreed to by the yeas 
and nays, 392-0 (Roll no. 601). On December 6, 2016, H.R. 5015 
was received in the Senate. No further action has been taken on 
the bill.

   H.R. 5351--To prohibit the transfer of any individual detained at 
           United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

    H.R. 5351, ``To prohibit the transfer of any individual 
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba'' 
was introduced on May 26, 2016, by Representative Jackie 
Walorski and was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 
The committee was discharged from consideration of the bill, 
and pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 863, H.R. 5351 was 
considered in the House under a closed rule on September 15, 
2016. The resolution included an amendment to the bill printed 
in part A of the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 114-744) that 
was considered as adopted. H. Res. 863 also provided for one 
hour of debate on H.R. 5351 equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
Services. On September 15, 2016, H.R. 5351 was passed in the 
House by the yeas and nays, 244-174 (Roll no. 520). H.R. 5351 
was received in the Senate on the same day. No further action 
has been taken.

                 H.R. 5458--Veterans TRICARE Choice Act

    H.R. 5458, the Veterans TRICARE Choice Act, was introduced 
on June 13, 2016, by Representative Chris Stewart and was 
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to 
the Committee on Armed Services, 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 June 15, 2016, the 
Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means held 
a markup session on H.R. 5458 and ordered it reported to the 
full committee, as amended, by voice vote. On September 8, 
2016, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on 
H.R. 5458. On November 14, 2016, the Committee on Ways and 
Means reported H.R. 5458, as amended, to the House (H. Rept. 
114-809). The Committee on Armed Services waived consideration 
of H.R. 5458, and was discharged on November 14, 2016. On 
November 29, 2016, Representative Adrian Smith moved to 
consider the bill, as amended, under suspension of the rules of 
the House. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, 
as amended, was agreed to by voice vote. On November 30, 2016, 
H.R. 5458 was received in the Senate. 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 114th 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 114th Congress, the committee continued its 
focus on the readiness, capability, and capacity of the U.S. 
Armed Forces to defend the Nation's interests, on supporting 
the authorities and resources necessary for ongoing military 
operations, and on improving the agility and efficiency of the 
Department of Defense. The National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as 
well as the joint explanatory statements that accompany them, 
are a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its 
primary responsibilities as enumerated in the U.S. 
Constitution.
    The committee recognizes that the current threat 
environment, as characterized by Dr. Henry Kissinger in January 
2015, is ``more diverse and complex'' that at any point since 
the end of the Second World War. Terrorism, including the 
spread of violent extremism by the Islamic State of Iraq and 
the Levant, instability in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
regional aggression by the Russian Federation, destabilizing 
actions by the People's Republic of China in the South and East 
China Seas, developments in nuclear and missile capabilities by 
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic 
Republic of Iran, and the continued spread of lethal and 
disruptive technologies, will continue to threaten U.S. 
national security interests. These events and other security 
developments across the globe also serve to highlight the 
continued need for the U.S. military to be postured and ready 
to defend the Nation's interests and address security 
challenges, wherever and whenever they may arise.
    The committee continued its oversight of: ongoing military 
operations where U.S. forces are in harm's way, including 
ongoing global counterterrorism operations; strategic 
reassurance and deterrence activities in Europe and the Asia-
Pacific; and Department of Defense investments in readiness, 
capabilities, and infrastructure to ensure the U.S. Armed 
Forces remain capable of addressing current and emerging 
conventional and unconventional challenges. The committee 
accomplished this oversight through numerous hearings and 
briefings; engagements with defense leaders, military 
commanders, diplomats, academics, and private sector experts; 
and congressional delegation visits to military installations 
and U.S. forces serving abroad.
    The committee also focused on evaluating the Nation's 
defense and military strategy, including the strategy outlined 
in the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, 
released in 2014, and the subsequent independent National 
Defense Panel review, to specifically include evaluating the 
alignment of the strategy to the security environment and the 
posture, capabilities, and resources necessary to execute the 
strategy. The committee also evaluated the risk associated with 
executing the strategy at current resource levels, particularly 
the impact that defense cuts and sequestration have on strategy 
execution.
    S. 2943 emphasizes defense strategy reform. It would 
eliminate the current Quadrennial Defense Review and replace it 
with a requirement for a top-down driven National Defense 
Strategy. It would also streamline and classify the National 
Military Strategy, as well as require a classified National 
Security Strategy.

                            FORCE PROTECTION

    During the 114th Congress, the committee emphasized force 
protection as a high priority issue for special oversight. The 
committee particularly focused on areas having a direct impact 
on the safety of military personnel engaged in the continued 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as 
the potential for attacks against U.S. troops deployed in 
support of Operation Inherent Resolve emanating from the Iraqi 
Security Forces (ISF), Shia militias, forces from the Islamic 
Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation, and Assad regime 
forces. The committee also closely monitored the contextual 
factors that could lead to a change in the force protection 
posture for U.S. forces.
    The committee worked to expedite the promulgation of 
policies and the fielding of technology and equipment that 
prevented and/or reduced combat casualties, as well as 
addressed the urgent operational needs of the global combatant 
commands in a timely manner.
    For all current overseas contingency operations, focus 
areas included, but were not limited to: the policies for 
management and acquisition of counter improvised explosive 
device (IED) equipment throughout the force; persistent 
surveillance, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; 
actionable tactical intelligence processing, exploitation, and 
dissemination capabilities in support of ground operations; 
effective intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
equipment capabilities; capabilities to counter indirect fire 
such as artillery and mortar munitions; lighter-weight, 
properly resourced, and timely fielded quantities of personal 
protection equipment, to include body armor, night vision 
equipment, combat helmets, and flame-resistant combat uniforms; 
vehicle armor, to include survivability improvements to the 
combat and tactical vehicle fleets; improving current biometric 
systems; and effective aircraft survivability equipment (ASE), 
specifically ASE for the current rotorcraft fleets.
    During the 114th Congress, the committee continued to 
provide robust oversight and monitored ``insider attacks'' 
perpetrated by Afghan security forces against U.S. and 
coalition personnel in Afghanistan. Additionally, the committee 
continued its oversight of the steps the Department of Defense 
is taking to understand, protect U.S. troops, and prevent such 
attacks, to include: the motive of such attacks; the tactics, 
techniques, and procedures leveraged by the attacker; the 
impact of the attacks on the mission; and the procedures being 
taken to mitigate for and, to the maximum extent possible, 
prevent future ``insider attacks.''
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
classified briefing on September 29, 2015, that focused on the 
global IED threat, to include the proliferation of the 
explosively formed projectile threat, and ways to mitigate this 
threat.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) authorized $438.8 million for the Joint IED 
Defeat Fund. Public Law 114-92 also required the Secretary of 
Defense to review the decision to transition the Joint IED 
Defeat Organization (JIDO) to a new combat support agency as 
part of the Office for the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Public Law 114-92 
authorized an additional $110.0 million to address an Army 
unfunded requirement to procure and develop improved 
countermeasures to better protect deployed AH-64E helicopters 
against the latest and most lethal threats.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, continued the 
committee's ongoing activities related to force protection 
efforts and management of the Joint Improvised Threat Defeat 
Organization, and provided an additional $527.1 million for 
military service rotorcraft and ASE upgrades. S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 
includes several legislative provisions related to force 
protection, countering IED threats, and the oversight of JIDO 
including: an extension of authority for the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF); and an extension of 
authority to use JIEDDF for training of foreign security forces 
to defeat improvised explosive devices. S. 2943 also includes 
additional oversight requirements to monitor JIDO as it 
transitions under the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    The committee continues to oversee military effectiveness 
in this era of declining budgets. Reductions to defense 
resources, to include mechanisms such as sequestration, could 
affect the quality of the U.S. Armed Forces as the Department 
of Defense 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. The committee, therefore, 
continued to focus on the Department's efforts to implement the 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to 
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements and to 
closely monitor the interdependencies between FIAR and the 
resources 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 to the FIAR plan in May and November 2015 and 2016. 
Supporting the Department's goal of achieving audit readiness 
by the end of 2017, the committee encouraged the Secretary of 
Defense to address the findings and recommendations identified 
in the Department's latest FIAR Plan Status Report from 
November 2015 and to continue improving the Department's audit 
infrastructure and annual audit regimen.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee identified that the implementation of Enterprise 
Resource Planning (ERP) systems was a critical element in the 
military departments' audit readiness plans. Specifically, the 
Army General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) supported 
standardized Army financial management and accounting 
practices, the Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (Navy ERP) 
system standardized Navy financial management, and the Air 
Force Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System 
(DEAMS) provided a range of financial management capabilities 
for the Air Force.
    The committee noted that the successful implementation, 
operation, and full utilization of GFEBS, Navy ERP, and DEAMS 
were critical to the military departments' ability to produce 
auditable statements and pass financial audits. The committee 
therefore encouraged the Army, Navy, and Air Force to ensure 
that full implementation, operation, and utilization of their 
respective ERP systems remain on schedule. The Department's 
Functional Management Office (FMO) is responsible for ensuring 
these ERP systems allow the end user to produce auditable, 
timely, and accurate reporting of all financial data. To 
fulfill the FMO's requirements and to ensure that GFEBS, Navy 
ERP, and DEAMS meet auditing standards, the committee noted 
that the Department should leverage greater certified public 
accountant expertise and Federal financial management 
experience. In that regard, the committee stated that this 
expertise and experience should be included in any follow-on 
award of a contract for implementation of, or enhancement to, 
GFEBS, Navy ERP, and DEAMS, to better ensure ERP system 
success, compliance with all laws and regulations, and to meet 
the functional needs of the financial user community.

                  U.S. MILITARY EFFORT IN AFGHANISTAN

    The U.S. military effort in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan continues in three parts: training, advising, and 
assisting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces; 
conducting counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda and the 
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--Khorasan Province; and 
executing force protection of U.S. personnel and facilities.
    The committee has conducted robust oversight of Operation 
Resolute Support, including the resourcing of the mission. The 
committee is continuing to examine the stability of the 
regional security environment and efforts to deny safe haven to 
Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, and other terrorist 
organizations.
    The committee has held multiple hearings and briefings on 
U.S. policy and operations in Afghanistan. Also, the committee 
has conducted member and staff travel to Afghanistan and the 
region to gain additional insight into these issues.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee fully 
funded and provided all necessary authorities to support the 
mission in Afghanistan.

                       OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE

    The U.S. and coalition forces continue to conduct 
operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 
(ISIL), known as Operation Inherent Resolve. As of December 
2016, operations are underway to re-take Mosul, in the Republic 
of Iraq, from ISIL and to isolate the city of Raqqa, in the 
Syrian Arab Republic, which is an ISIL stronghold.
    The committee has conducted oversight of these efforts, 
including the application of resources, the effectiveness of 
the campaign, and the stability plans following the military 
campaign. The committee has held hearings and briefings on the 
coalition military campaign, as well as the political and 
sectarian dynamics in both Iraq and Syria that have in part 
fostered the context and political climate for ISIL to expand 
and grow. Additionally, the committee has sought expert views 
and analysis from leading academics, retired military 
officials, and former diplomats. Further, the committee has 
regularly conducted travel to Iraq and the region to monitor 
the operations and gain insights from allies and partners.
    Additionally, the committee has monitored the stability of 
the countries in the region of Iraq and Syria as well as the 
U.S. effort to prevent the expansion of ISIL in the region.
    The committee also has focused on the efforts to train and 
equip the Iraqi Security Forces and the vetted elements of the 
moderate Syrian opposition. The committee will continue to 
examine and take legislative action to refine these efforts so 
that they are successful and support the overall mission and 
U.S. interests.
    Finally, in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee 
provided full funding and all necessary authorities to support 
the missions in Iraq and Syria.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
    The committee examined the President's military actions 
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), 
including the legal underpinnings of such actions. To date, the 
President has cited the Article II authority under the U.S. 
Constitution as well as the 2001 Authorization for Use of 
Military Force (Public Law 107-40) and the Authorization for 
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public 
Law 107-243) as the legal basis for U.S. military operations in 
the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic.
    The committee has studied Public Law 107-40 and Public Law 
107-243, including a hearing in February 2016, with outside 
experts, to inform consideration of any new authorization for 
the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL, including 
lessons learned from the implementation of Public Law 107-40 
and Public Law 107-243 and how those AUMFs comport with the 
evolving nature of the threat.

                        THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST

    The Greater Middle East remained an area of focus for 
committee oversight in the 114th Congress. This geographic area 
includes countries in which the United States has invested, and 
continues to invest, significant military resources.
    Al Qaeda, its affiliates, its associated organizations, and 
other terrorist organizations continue to leverage safehavens 
in certain countries within this region to conduct operational 
planning and to serve as launch points for attacks against the 
United States, its allies and partners, and U.S. interests. As 
a result, the committee conducted oversight of U.S. defense 
policies, readiness, and military programs in this region 
through congressional travel, multiple hearings and classified 
briefings, and engagements with outside experts.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan
    The committee continued to conduct oversight on the broad 
range of security issues involving the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan and, given the critical U.S. military effort in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, carefully reviewed the use of 
Coalition Support Funds (CSF), which are provided to reimburse 
Pakistan for its support to U.S. military operations, and 
security assistance to Pakistan.
    The committee monitored the security and stability of 
Pakistan, including the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, 
Pakistan's on-going and future nuclear weapon projects, and its 
willingness and operational capacity to combat key terrorist 
groups, such as Al Qaeda, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, the 
Haqqani network, and other terrorist organizations. Moreover, 
the committee evaluated the terrorist activity emanating from 
the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted 
oversight of the Department of Defense's efforts to combat the 
threat.
    The committee took steps to update CSF authorization in S. 
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2017. Specifically, the CSF was revised to include additional 
activities for reimbursement in support of Pakistan's 
counterterrorism and internal security challenges. The 
committee maintained limitations on CSF to Pakistan and will 
continue to carefully scrutinize reimbursements to Pakistan in 
accordance with the law.
Republic of Iraq
    The U.S. military posture, strategy, and approach has 
changed significantly within the Republic of Iraq. The on-going 
U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and 
the Levant and the effort to re-train and re-build the Iraqi 
Security Forces are the key efforts that has been the focus of 
committee oversight in the 114th Congress.
    Other areas of oversight focus within the U.S. military 
campaign in Iraq included the employment of U.S. military 
forces, the effectiveness of the air campaign, and the 
robustness of enabler support. The committee also has closely 
monitored the political situation in Iraq.
    The committee held several hearings and received numerous 
briefings on Iraq, ranging from intelligence and operational 
updates, to policy and strategy reviews with Department of 
Defense officials and outside experts.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee provided 
authorization and full funding for the Iraq Train and Equip 
Fund. Additionally, the committee re-authorized the Office of 
Security Cooperation in Iraq and provided other authorities for 
the commander such as the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program for ex gratia payments.
Islamic Republic of Iran
    The committee conducted oversight of U.S. national security 
policy and strategy with respect to the Government of the 
Islamic Republic of Iran, placing particular emphasis on Iran's 
nuclear program and capabilities. During the 114th Congress, 
the committee also monitored the threat posed by Iran's 
ballistic missile capabilities, its malign activities in the 
region, and its support to proxy terrorist organizations and 
militias, such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia militias.
    The committee has conducted oversight of the implementation 
of the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action (CJPOA) between the 
P5+1 (the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the 
People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, and the Federal 
Republic of Germany) and Iran, including Iran's fulfillment of 
its commitments under the CJPOA.
    Finally, the committee continued to monitor the strategic 
orientation, operational capacity, and goals of the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guards Corps. The committee also focused its 
attention towards Iran's Quds Force, including the activities 
of the Quds Force in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of 
Iraq, and the region.
    In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee took 
steps to review U.S. military posture within the Arabian Gulf 
region and to understand Iran's use of commercial entities for 
illicit military activities.
Syrian Arab Republic
    The committee conducted oversight into the evolving 
security and humanitarian situation inside the Syrian Arab 
Republic, as well as the effects of the on-going conflict on 
its neighbors, including the Republic of Turkey, the Islamic 
Republic of Iran, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic 
of Iraq, and the Lebanese Republic. Additionally, the committee 
monitored the U.S. and coalition military operations in Syria 
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as part 
of Operation Inherent Resolve.
    The committee held several hearings and received numerous 
briefings on Syria, ranging from intelligence and operational 
updates to policy and strategy reviews with Department of 
Defense officials and outside experts.
    The committee reviewed the U.S. policy and approach against 
the Assad regime. Further, the committee focused on the 
movement of fighters to and from Syria, including the capacity 
and relative strength of ISIL and other terrorist groups acting 
in Syria.
    Finally, the committee conducted oversight of the effort to 
train and equip the moderate elements of the vetted Syrian 
opposition and the deployment and positioning of military 
personnel and resources to the region to address this issue 
set. In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee re-
authorized the Syria Train and Equip program. The committee 
maintained the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to 
reprogram monies for this program in order to maintain close 
congressional oversight of this effort.
Republic of Yemen
    The security situation in the Republic of Yemen was a 
significant focus for the committee. The committee maintained 
its oversight of the U.S. military's counterterrorism 
activities in Yemen, the United States' support to the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia, and the status of coalition efforts to counter 
Houthi rebels in Yemen.
    The committee also monitored the capability, capacity, and 
strategy of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to conduct 
transnational terrorist attacks and the associated U.S. 
counterterrorism efforts against AQAP.
    The committee conducted congressional travel to the region 
and engaged with allies and partners in the region to gain more 
clarity into the regional dynamics and coalition effort in 
Yemen.

                        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, Al Qaeda, as well as 
its adherents and affiliates, remains active in areas of 
importance to the United States, including: the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan; the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; the 
Islamic Republic of Iraq; the Federal Republic of Somalia; and 
the Republic of Yemen. The committee continued to conduct 
oversight, often in classified form, over terrorism issues, 
with particular attention to special operations capabilities, 
and the changing nature of Al Qaeda's organization, affiliates, 
and its operations, as well as threats being posed by the 
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The committee 
continued to focus on efforts to build partner nation 
counterterrorism and conventional warfare capabilities to 
counter these threats at the regional and local level. As the 
United States strengthened and built partnership capacity with 
key allies around the globe, the committee remained focused on 
the Department of Defense's efforts to aggressively fight the 
global war on terror and counter radicalism in places of 
concern, such as Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, North 
Africa, and threats posed by groups such as the Islamic State 
of Iraq and the Levant. Ensuring security and stability in 
volatile regions that cannot adequately govern themselves or 
secure their own territory remained a top priority for the 
committee.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities held several related hearings in this area 
including: a hearing on March 18, 2015, ``Special Operations 
Forces in an Uncertain Threat Environment: A Review of the 
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for U.S. Special Operations 
Command''; a hearing on March 25, 2015, ``Countering Weapons of 
Mass Destruction (CWMD) Strategy and the Fiscal Year 2016 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense 
Program''; a hearing on June 24, 2015, ``The Counterterrorism 
Strategy Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 
(ISIL): Are We on the Right Path?''; a hearing on March 1, 
2016, ``Outside Views on Special Operations Forces in an 
Evolving Threat Environment as a Review of the Fiscal Year 2017 
Budget Request for U.S. Special Operations Command''; and a 
joint hearing on June 9, 2016, with the Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the House Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, ``Stopping the Money Flow: The War on 
Terror Finance.''
    Similarly, the committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities held several classified and/or closed 
briefings and roundtables including: a roundtable on February 
5, 2015, ``Understanding Today's Challenges and Tomorrow's 
Threats to U.S. National Security''; a briefing on February 26, 
2015, ``Quarterly Update on Counterterrorism Operations and 
Intelligence''; a briefing on June 17, 2015, ``Quarterly Update 
on Counterterrorism Operations and Intelligence''; a roundtable 
on September 10, 2015, ``A Roundtable Discussion on Iranian 
Irregular Warfare Threats''; a briefing on October 8, 2015, 
``Quarterly Update on Counterterrorism Operations and 
Intelligence;'' a briefing on January 8, 2016, ``Understanding 
and Preventing Emerging 21st Century Threats''; a briefing on 
May 26, 2016, ``Counterterrorism Operations and Intelligence''; 
a joint briefing on July 12, 2016, with the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, ``Department of Defense Human 
Intelligence Capabilities--The Defense Clandestine Service: 
Organizational History and Proposed Changes''; and a briefing 
on November 30, 2016, ``Update on Cyber Operations Support to 
Counterterrorism.'' The committee continued additional 
classified oversight functions on a recurring basis, including 
issue-driven updates via secure communications with senior 
Department of Defense officials on current activities, most 
notably in cyber and global counterterrorism operations. 
Committee members and staff also conducted oversight by 
traveling overseas on congressional delegations and staff 
delegations to the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of 
Turkey, the State of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, the 
Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Djibouti, the Republic of 
Niger, the Kingdom of Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic 
of Algeria, and the Federal Republic of Germany.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included several legislative provisions 
related to the global war on terrorism, counterterrorism, 
special operations forces, and sensitive activities. These 
included: a section that would make permanent the authority for 
the Secretary of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person 
providing information or nonlethal assistance to U.S. 
Government personnel or government personnel of allied forces 
participating in a combined operation with U.S. Armed Forces 
conducted outside the United States against international 
terrorism or providing such information or assistance that is 
beneficial to force protection associated with such an 
operation; a section that would increase from $75.0 million to 
$85.0 million the authority for support of special operations 
to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the Ronald 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375); a section that would extend by 1 year, 
the authority for non-conventional assisted recovery 
capabilities for conventional and special operations forces 
pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81); a briefing on the shallow water combat 
submersible program; a modification to congressional 
notification procedures of sensitive military operations; 
congressional notification requirements related to facilities 
for intelligence collection or for special operations abroad; 
prohibition on use of funds for retirement of helicopter sea 
combat squadron 84 and 85 aircraft; the establishment of an 
Interagency Hostage Recovery Coordinator; a requirement for a 
Department of Defense strategy for countering unconventional 
warfare; and modification for Department of Defense 
capabilities to respond to situations involving bombings of 
places of public use, Government facilities, public 
transportation systems, and infrastructure facilities.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions related to 
the use of force in counterterrorism operations and the global 
war on terrorism including: an increase in frequency of defense 
committee counterterrorism operations briefings from quarterly 
to monthly; modifications to section 130f of title 10, United 
States Code, congressional notification of sensitive military 
operations, to strengthen oversight and notification 
requirements; an extension and modification of authority for 
support of special operations to combat terrorism; modification 
of the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship program; 
an extension and modification of authority for non-conventional 
assisted recovery capabilities; changes to the Department of 
Defense for management of special operations forces and special 
operations; and a modification and extension of authority to 
provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the 
Levant.

                                 AFRICA

    The committee conducted regular oversight on Department of 
Defense activities in Africa. The committee continued to 
examine the Department's coordination within the interagency to 
address the range of activities that are occurring in Africa. 
The committee devoted particular attention to the Department's 
implementation of the global train and equip authority codified 
in the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291) and the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF) 
authorized by Public Law 113-291. As the Department's reliance 
on training and equipping African partners to provide regional 
security has increased, the committee focused on the 
Department's execution of train and equip programs, the 
development of defense institutions in African nations, and the 
ability of African partner nations to absorb and sustain the 
assistance provided. The committee's oversight of the 
Department's programs and activities in Africa contributed to 
the committee's measures to reform security cooperation 
authorities, as described elsewhere in this report.
    The committee focused its oversight on the broad range of 
security challenges across the African continent, including the 
tenuous security situation in Libya and violence from terrorist 
organizations and their affiliates such as the Islamic State of 
Iraq and the Levant in North Africa, Boko Haram in the Lake 
Chad region, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in the western 
Sahel, and Al Shabaab in the Horn of Africa. S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would 
require the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive 
strategy for U.S. defense interests in Africa to enable the 
Department to address and plan for these challenges. The 
committee held a hearing and conducted discussions with outside 
experts on Islamic extremism in January and February 2015, and 
received numerous staff-level briefings on security threats 
throughout the continent.
    Specifically to North Africa, the committee received 
Member- and staff-level briefings on the threat of the Islamic 
State of Iraq and the Levant, which presents a significant 
threat to the region, particularly in Libya. The Joint 
Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 1356, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Committee Print 
No. 2) noted the importance of a secure and stable Tunisian 
Republic to counter the threat posed by the Islamic State of 
Iraq and the Levant and other terrorist organizations in North 
Africa and encouraged the provision of U.S. assistance to 
Tunisia. Additionally, the committee conducted oversight on the 
Department of Defense's implementation of the lessons learned 
from the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, including, but not 
limited to, interagency coordination, positioning of military 
assets, threat perception, threat analysis, intelligence 
sharing, operational coordination, and crisis response in the 
``new normal'' operational environment.
    With respect to East Africa, the committee received 
numerous staff-level briefings on military operations in the 
Federal Republic of Somalia to counter the threat from Al 
Shabaab, particularly given the increased resources devoted to 
the development of Somali security forces. The committee 
remained focused on the threat from Al Shabaab, as well as the 
steps that the Department is taking to counter this group and 
prevent transnational terrorist attacks on the United States, 
its allies and partners, and its interests. Moreover, the 
committee continued to monitor the overlapping ideological, 
strategic, and operational coordination between Horn of Africa 
terrorist groups, such as Al Shabaab, and terrorist groups on 
the Arabian Peninsula, such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian 
Peninsula.
    The committee continued its oversight of threats in West 
Africa. The committee paid particular attention to the 
continuing ideological, strategic, and operational evolution of 
Boko Haram and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The Joint 
Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 1356, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Committee Print 
No. 2) required the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State to submit a report on the threat of Boko Haram and the 
efforts taken to counter this threat. Additionally, the 
committee maintained its oversight of Operation United 
Assistance until its conclusion in May 2015, receiving regular 
briefs on the status of the operation, safety measures, and the 
transition of the Department of Defense's mission to other 
Government agencies.
    In Central Africa, the committee continued its oversight of 
the Department of Defense's activities to support the Uganda 
Peoples' Defense Force and other national militaries to counter 
the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and apprehend or remove Joseph 
Kony. The committee received multiple staff-level briefings on 
the transition of the counter-LRA effort, as required in the 
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.

                                 EUROPE

    In the past two years, there has been a shift in U.S. 
security and foreign policy towards Europe. In 2016, the 
Secretary of Defense characterized Russia as the number one 
strategic threat. European security has also been shaped by 
continued threats from terrorism, including from returning 
foreign fighters currently in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Syrian Arab Republic fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and 
the Levant, and a refugee crisis of immigrants fleeing violence 
in the Middle East and Africa.
    The committee's primary emphasis in this area has been to 
oversee the U.S. military policy and strategy, programs, and 
resources necessary to effectively deter and defend against 
Russian aggression. As the committee learned in multiple 
hearings and briefings, and from visits to military 
installations and training facilities, there is a recognition 
among the military services that, after 15 years focused on 
counterterrorism operations in the greater Middle East, the 
readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces vis-a-vis a near-peer 
challenger has eroded.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, increase resources for 
the European Reassurance Initiative, which includes funding the 
deployment of a rotational Army Brigade Combat Team to increase 
U.S. military presence in Europe, preposition equipment, 
training and exercises, and intelligence capabilities.
    The committee also continues to monitor contributions that 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries provide to 
regional and global security, including the deployment of 
approximately 3,000 personnel to the NATO-led Operation 
Resolute Support mission in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, and how those contributions complement U.S. forces 
and capabilities. In particular, the committee continues to 
monitor the outcomes announced at NATO's 2014 Wales and 2016 
Warsaw summits, and how such outcomes will be implemented with 
available resources.

Russian Federation

    The Russian Federation continues to maintain an assertive 
foreign policy, particularly evident in Ukraine and the Syrian 
Arab Republic. Russian military activity, and its employment of 
unconventional and conventional warfare tactics, particularly 
in Central and Eastern Europe and in Syria, was a primary area 
of concern for the committee in the 114th Congress. After 15 
years primarily focused on counterterrorism operations in the 
greater Middle East, the committee recognized that a greater 
emphasis addressing near-peer capabilities and deterrence was 
necessary. Thus, the committee's oversight has focused on the 
U.S. military capabilities, capacity, posture, and readiness 
needed to effectively counter and deter Russia.
    The Department of Defense's European Reassurance 
Initiative, and the resources associated with it, was a 
significant area of oversight for the committee. The committee 
sought to ensure that the increased resources were being 
effectively applied against valid requirements. The committee 
also maintained oversight of Department of Defense resources 
and tools allocated to building the capacity of Ukraine and 
other NATO allies and partners to deter and defend against 
further Russian aggression.
    During the 114th Congress, the committee received several 
intelligence briefings on Russia's military modernization 
programs, its combat actions and objectives in Syria, and its 
continued aggression in Ukraine. The committee held hearings on 
February 25, 2015, and February 25, 2016, with the commander of 
U.S. European Command, to inform its deliberations on the 
fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 national defense 
authorization acts, respectively. The committee also held a 
hearing on February 10, 2016, with outside experts, to examine 
Russian motives and strategies and its implications for U.S. 
policy and strategy, entitled ``Understanding and Deterring 
Russia: U.S. Policies and Strategies.'' Additionally, for the 
first time in recent years, the committee participated in a 
Defense Intelligence Agency-led senior leader seminar to 
examine the complex challenges associated with Russia.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) contained several provisions to bolster the 
deterrence and defense capabilities of the United States and 
its allies and partners in Europe, to include authorizing 
$789.0 million for the European Reassurance Initiative, $300.0 
million for security assistance, equipment, and training to 
Ukrainian forces, and additional types of training for Eastern 
European partners. Public Law 114-92 also limited military 
cooperation between the United States and Russia, and required 
the Department to examine U.S. troop levels and the posturing 
of defense materiel in Europe.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, continued, and in some cases enhanced, many of the 
provisions from fiscal year 2016. These include authorizing an 
increase in funds for the renamed European Deterrence 
Initiative, $350.0 million for security assistance, equipment, 
and training to Ukraine, and an increase in U.S. military 
presence and prepositioned equipment in Europe.

                                  ASIA

    The committee continued to oversee the Department of 
Defense's implementation of the U.S. policy to ``rebalance'' to 
the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, the committee monitored 
the Department's strategy, force posture, capability needs, and 
readiness in the region to ensure that U.S. forces are properly 
resourced and postured to protect U.S. national security 
interests.
    The People's Republic of China continues its unilateral 
efforts to assert regional influence, particularly in the South 
and East China Seas, while also continuing to modernize its 
military. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea continues 
to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, and 
in 2016 alone, has significantly increased its volume of 
missile tests and conducted two nuclear tests. The committee 
monitored these and other emerging developments to inform its 
views and actions to shape U.S. national security policy, 
strategy, and defense investments for the region.
    These security challenges have led the United States to 
strengthen its relationships with traditional treaty allies 
while also forging new relationships, particularly with 
partners in Southeast Asia. The committee continued to closely 
oversee the Department of Defense's efforts to implement a 
range of posture, force structure, and engagement initiatives 
in the region, including rotational deployments of Marines, 
naval, and air assets; forward pre-positioning; infrastructure 
realignments; training and exercises; and security cooperation 
programs.
    During the 114th Congress, the committee received 
intelligence briefings on China's military modernization 
programs and its island construction and military-related 
activities in the South China Sea, as well as on North Korea's 
nuclear and missile developments. The committee also engaged 
with defense and economic experts from the U.S.-China Economic 
and Security Review Commission regarding their annual report to 
Congress.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, authorizes the South China Sea Initiative to 
increase maritime security and maritime domain awareness of 
foreign countries along the South China Sea. In S. 2943, the 
committee supported senior military exchanges between the 
United States and Taiwan, authorizes an annual report on U.S. 
Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), authorizes 
additional reporting requirements in the China Military Power 
Report on the order of battle of the People's Liberation Army 
and Chinese military activities in the South China Sea, and 
authorizes funding for the Southeast Asia Maritime Security 
Initiative.

                       CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA

    The committee continued to oversee the programs and 
policies of the Department of Defense related to Central and 
South America. In particular, the committee maintained 
oversight of programs relating to the Republic of Colombia and 
the Northern Triangle of Central America, including the 
Republic of Honduras, the Republic of Guatemala and the 
Republic of El Salvador. The committee paid particular 
attention to how violence related to transnational organized 
crime affected security and stability in the region.
    The committee hosted discussions with U.S. military 
commanders and foreign ambassadors to better understand the 
regional security environment, the budget and priorities of 
U.S. Southern Command, and key regional developments such as 
the peace process in Colombia.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included several provisions that would 
reauthorize Department of Defense counternarcotics authorities 
for Colombia, authorize additional funding for defense programs 
in Central America, and authorize additional funding for 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for U.S. 
Southern Command.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes several provisions that would reauthorize 
Department of Defense counternarcotics authorities for Colombia 
and provides funding to address the de-mining initiative in 
Colombia.

                          SECURITY COOPERATION

    Throughout the 114th Congress, the committee paid 
significant attention to the Department of Defense efforts in 
building partner capacity (BPC) and security cooperation. The 
committee's focus on these activities led to comprehensive 
reform of the authorities, funding, programs, and oversight of 
security cooperation.
    The committee conducted ``BPC Week'' from October 20 to 
October 22, 2015, which included a ``Security Cooperation 101'' 
roundtable led by the Congressional Research Service, an open 
committee hearing with outside witnesses, and a closed, 
classified committee briefing with Administration officials. 
Additionally, the committee received numerous staff-level 
briefings. The committee continued to monitor and assess the 
execution of BPC authorities, both during the initial 
congressional notification process and while those programs 
were in progress. The committee also conducted oversight of the 
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund allocations toward BPC 
activities.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included numerous provisions addressing the 
committee's concerns about BPC. Public Law 114-92 required the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 
State, to develop and issue to the Department of Defense a 
strategic framework for Department of Defense security 
cooperation to guide prioritization of resources and 
activities. Public Law 114-92 extended for 1 year the funding 
limitations for the existing train and equip authority 
(formerly referred to as ``section 1206''), modified the 
National Guard State Partnership Program, extended the 
authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense personnel 
between the United States and foreign countries, authorized the 
Secretary of Defense to provide training and support to 
personnel of foreign ministries of defense, and required the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide semi-
annual reports to Congress on the military intelligence 
training of foreign personnel.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, would further reform security cooperation by: 
creating a new security cooperation chapter in United States 
Code to combine and codify numerous authorities and funding 
sources; consolidating and simplifying multiple, disparate 
authorities; combining numerous existing authorities to train 
and equip security forces of foreign countries into one 
consolidated authority; requiring an annual consolidated budget 
for security cooperation programs and activities; rationalizing 
the coordination between the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State, including joint development and planning 
to ensure security cooperation programs align with foreign 
policy objectives; requiring the Department of Defense develop 
a program of assessment, monitoring, and evaluation to improve 
security cooperation program outcomes; consolidating 
congressional notification and reporting requirements to 
improve oversight and transparency; requiring rigorous 
standards to improve the quality of the security cooperation 
workforce while improving career progression opportunities; and 
mandating a quadrennial review of security sector assistance 
programs and authorities and an independent assessment of the 
Department's security cooperation programs. Additionally, S. 
2943 would increase the obligation authority of the Special 
Defense Acquisition Fund to $2.5 billion, while requiring that 
$500.0 million of the fund may only be used for precision 
guided munitions that may be required by partner and allied 
forces to enhance the effectiveness of their contribution to 
overseas contingency operations conducted or supported by the 
United States. The committee will continue to conduct oversight 
of security cooperation programs and funding to ensure the 
Department of Defense appropriately institutes the reforms 
included in S. 2943.
    Related to BPC and security cooperation, the committee also 
conducted oversight of the parts of the Foreign Military Sales 
(FMS) program that are executed by the Department of Defense. 
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations held hearings on FMS on May 11, 
2016, and May 17, 2016, and conducted a Member-level briefing 
on April 20, 2016. As required by the committee report (H. 
Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
act for Fiscal Year 2016, and by the committee report (H. Rept. 
114-537) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2017, the Department of Defense provided two 
briefings to committee staff on improvements to the FMS 
process. Additionally, the committee received numerous other 
staff-level briefings on the FMS program. S. 2943 would require 
the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to require 
the use of firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military 
sales and would require that contracts in support of FMS cases 
meet a 180-day definitization requirement.

                              INTELLIGENCE

    In the 114th Congress, the committee continued to monitor 
the reorganization of the Intelligence Community through 
implementation of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) and the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence position authorized by 
the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). The committee held hearings and 
briefings to examine resource allocation for intelligence-
related programs 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. These included hearings and 
briefings on ``The Present and Future State of Defense 
Intelligence,'' ``World Wide Threats,'' ``The Defense Human 
Intelligence (HUMINT) Enterprise,'' ``The Intelligence 
Community's Use of Social Media,'' and ``Counterintelligence: 
The Enemy is Watching and Listening,'' along with other current 
intelligence and programmatic updates.
    Additionally, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities conducted several classified member briefings 
covering intelligence support to counterterrorism, 
counterproliferation, and cyber operations, as well as 
intelligence support for science and technology investments.

       DETAINEE POLICY, MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND RELATED MATTERS

    The committee continued its oversight of detainee policy, 
including detainees held in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
and at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
(GTMO).
    With respect to detainees held in Afghanistan, the 
committee continued to focus on the intelligence provided by 
the Government of Afghanistan from detainees under their 
control and the implications for U.S. intelligence and 
operations associated with the current U.S. policy to not 
detain combatants in Afghanistan.
    With respect to detainees held 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) that established the 
current legal framework governing the operation of military 
tribunals to try detainees for war crimes and codified some of 
the procedural rights of GTMO detainees. The chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigation led a 
congressional delegation of five other committee Members to 
GTMO in February 2015, to observe the detention operations 
first-hand and to be briefed on the detention facility's 
operations. Furthermore, the committee received Member-level 
GTMO transfer updates on February 12, 2015, March 24, 2015, 
April 14, 2015, June 11, 2015, June 8, 2016, and September 15, 
2016, in addition to numerous staff-level briefings on 
transfers of GTMO detainees. The National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) reenacted and 
modified certain prior requirements relating to the transfer of 
GTMO detainees to foreign countries; required the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report setting forth the details of a 
comprehensive strategy for the detention of current and future 
individuals captured and held pursuant to the Authorization for 
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); prohibited the use 
of fiscal year 2016 funds made available to the Department of 
Defense for the realignment of forces at or closure of GTMO; 
and prohibited until December 31, 2016, the transfer of GTMO 
detainees to the United States, the construction or 
modification of facilities in the United States to house GTMO 
detainees, and the transfer of GTMO detainees to Libya, the 
Federal Republic of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the 
Republic of Yemen. Public Law 114-92 also required new reports 
on current GTMO detainees determined to be high or medium risk, 
on contact between terrorists and former GTMO detainees, about 
recidivism of former GTMO detainees, on terms of written 
agreements with foreign countries regarding transfers of GTMO 
detainees, and on the use of GTMO and other Department of 
Defense or Bureau of Prisons prisons or detention or 
disciplinary facilities in recruitment or other propaganda of 
terrorist organizations. S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would extend until 
December 31, 2017, the prohibitions on transfer of GTMO 
detainees to the United States, the construction or 
modification of facilities in the United States to house GTMO 
detainees, and the transfer of GTMO detainees to Libya, the 
Federal Republic of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the 
Republic of Yemen.

Taliban Five Transfer

    As described elsewhere in this report, the chairman of the 
House Committee on Armed Services and the chairwoman of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations issued a report on 
the inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 transfer 
to the State of Qatar of five law-of-war detainees in 
connection with the recovery of a captive U.S. Army sergeant. 
The report included dissenting views of the ranking member of 
the House Committee on Armed Services and the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
    This work was the continuation of activities directed to be 
undertaken in 2014 by the previous chairman of the committee. 
The mandated task was to inquire into the rationale for the 
transfer, the process by which the transfer decision was made, 
the national security implications of the transfer, and related 
topics. In the course of the investigation, the committee 
conducted transcribed interviews of 16 Department officials 
involved in or knowledgeable of the transfer and related 
events. The subcommittee also received more than 4,000 pages of 
classified and unclassified documents from the Department of 
Defense and other agencies, reviewed classified video footage, 
conducted a staff oversight trip to Qatar, and facilitated two 
congressional delegations to United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

                      NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES

    During the 114th Congress, the committee reviewed the 
recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the 
Army to allow for an independent review of the roles, missions 
and balance of the Reserve Component and Active Component of 
the Army for the future. Given the uncertainty of the current 
and projected fiscal environment, the availability of equipment 
needed to sustain and modernize the National Guard and Reserve 
Components as an operational Reserve and for their domestic 
support missions, to include legacy aircraft as part of the 
Aerospace Control Alert mission, remains a concern. The 
committee also focused oversight efforts 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 mission, defense 
support to civil authorities. Furthermore, the committee 
continued to monitor and evaluate the obligation and execution 
rates of funds provided as part of a separate procurement 
account, entitled the National Guard and Reserve Equipment 
Account, which would be used to address equipment shortfalls 
for the National Guard and Reserve Components.

                JOINT TASK FORCE ON U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND

    On December 11, 2015, the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services designated Representative Brad Wenstrup of Ohio 
to serve as his representative on a three-member Joint Task 
Force charged with investigating allegations that intelligence 
analysis had been improperly manipulated in 2014 and early 2015 
at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The Joint Task Force's other 
members were a majority party member of the Subcommittee on 
Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations and a majority 
party member of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. Majority staff of the Committee on Armed Services 
assisted Representative Wenstrup in his assignment. 
Representative Wenstrup and/or majority staff conducted 15 
transcribed interviews (totaling almost 1,500 pages and nearly 
40 hours) of relevant uniformed and civilian personnel of 
varying grades or rank at CENTCOM. One congressional delegation 
and one staff delegation were also undertaken to CENTCOM 
headquarters to gather information, and the Joint Task Force 
members and/or staff reviewed more than 2,000 pages of 
documents produced by the Department of Defense. On August 10, 
2016, the Joint Task Force released a 17-page report of its 
work to date entitled ``Initial Findings of the House of 
Representatives Joint Task Force on U.S. Central Command 
Intelligence Analysis.''

                             Defense Reform


                                OVERVIEW

    In the 114th Congress, the committee prioritized defense 
reform to create greater agility, accountability, and 
responsiveness within the Department of Defense, and to get 
more value for the tax payer dollar. The committee's reform 
efforts were focused in four principal areas: acquisition; 
compensation and benefits (including healthcare and 
commissaries); Uniform Code of Military Justice; and personnel, 
organization and management.
    In these areas, the committee conducted numerous hearings 
and briefings; held discussions with experts from across 
defense, academia, and the private sector; traveled to military 
installations, industry facilities, and other relevant sites; 
and conducted its own independent research and analysis to 
inform major legislative reform packages carried in both the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2017.

                           ACQUISITION ISSUES

The Acquisition System and Acquisition Policy

    The committee continued its ongoing effort to improve the 
agility of the Department of Defense acquisition system and the 
environment (i.e., human resources, culture, statutes, 
regulations, and processes) driving acquisition choices in the 
Department, industry, and Congress. In undertaking this effort, 
the committee solicited input from industry, academia, the 
Department, and others during the 113th Congress, and continued 
to engage these stakeholders during the 114th Congress. The 
committee also continued with a series of hearings, briefings, 
and roundtable discussions in the 114th Congress to receive 
testimony from key acquisition leaders and experts.
    The committee remains concerned that the Department's 
conventional acquisition system is not sufficiently agile to 
support warfighter demands. On average, major defense 
acquisition programs operate for 9 years before yielding new 
capabilities. Requirements determination, budgeting, and 
contracting can each take another 2 years or more before 
programs begin. Meanwhile, technological change has been 
rapidly generating new, and often unforeseeable, innovations. 
Global threats are evolving even more quickly, with adversaries 
leveraging new technologies to exploit gaps in our military 
capabilities. The conventional acquisition system simply does 
not enable capabilities to be delivered to warfighters fast 
enough. The committee has concluded that the current 
acquisition system costs too much, takes too long, and the 
troops simply do not get enough out of it.
    The committee notes that this persistent lack of agility 
derives in part from the basic incentives embedded in the 
requirements, acquisition, budget, and oversight processes. 
Weapon system requirements must be set anticipating technology 
that will be available after years of development, so 
requirements are naturally optimistic. Optimism carries with it 
substantial technical risk, which leads the acquisition system 
to make short-term, cost-savings decisions that reduce 
flexibility and increase long-term costs. Budget timelines and 
oversight committees require the military services to provide 
detailed budget justifications, even though such details then 
limit the services' ability to pursue new technological 
innovations after funds are appropriated. Then in response to 
acquisition shortcomings, both Congress and the Department have 
imposed new layers of bureaucratic management and special 
authorities to circumvent the conventional acquisition process.
    While the committee recognizes that there are no ``silver 
bullet'' reform packages that can immediately fix the current 
acquisition system in a holistic manner, the committee built on 
initial reforms included in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), by incorporating 
several provisions in S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, aimed at addressing 
many of the identified shortcomings. Of note, S. 2943 includes 
provisions that would:
    (1) Require modular open systems approaches (MOSA) for new 
weapon systems after January 1, 2019. MOSA creates 
opportunities for more rapid updates of components, insertion 
of new technology, and responses to emerging threats.
    (2) Authorize new budgetary flexibility for military 
services to experiment with new technology and prototype weapon 
system components, while providing $225.0 million to the 
military departments in the Rapid Prototyping Fund and 
excluding associated prototyping projects from major defense 
acquisition program cost baselines. Experimentation is 
consistent with best practice and avoids years of requirements 
and budgeting process. Service prototyping boards and 
congressional reporting would enable effective oversight.
    (3) Require the Secretary of Defense to establish cost and 
schedule targets at program initiation, and requires technology 
to be developed in major defense acquisition programs only if 
such development will not delay the program.
    (4) Delegate additional acquisition program management to 
the senior acquisition executives of the military departments, 
rather than the Office of the Secretary of Defense, while 
further reinforcing the role and responsibilities of the 
military service chiefs in identifying performance requirements 
(including tradeoffs between cost, schedule, technical 
feasibility, and performance) of major defense acquisition 
programs.
    (5) Refocus the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on 
identifying capability gaps, validating that proposed weapon 
systems fulfill capability gaps, and approving only truly joint 
performance requirements, such as interoperability.
    (6) Establish an ``Acquisition Scorecard'' that pulls 
exclusively from existing reports to provide departmental and 
congressional leadership with key decision metrics from both 
program offices and from independent assessors. Improvements in 
transparency will strengthen risk management and oversight of 
major defense acquisition programs and addresses concerns of a 
lack of awareness of risk and weaknesses in risk management.
    (7) Direct the establishment of an enterprise data system 
for acquisition program cost data, expands the scope of 
programs on which cost data is collected, and standardizes cost 
data to facilitate analysis.
    (8) Align intellectual property rights to MOSA and 
rebalance those rights to ensure the Government maintains 
access to needed technical data while encouraging companies to 
do business with the Department.

Defense Industrial Base and Technology Transfers

    The committee continued examination of the health, 
security, competitiveness, and innovative capacity of the 
defense industrial base. The committee recognizes that the 
industrial base for complex major weapons systems and other 
services has become more fragile, with both large contractors 
consolidating and small contractors leaving the government 
marketplace. A less competitive industrial base limits the 
ability of the Department of Defense to control costs and 
encourage innovation. The committee therefore incorporated 
several provisions in S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, aimed at reducing 
barriers and costs of participating in the Federal marketplace, 
that would:
    (1) Require the Cost Account Board to meet and reduce 
differences between Government cost accounting standards and 
private-sector Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, while 
allowing private-sector auditors to certify contractor business 
systems that are required by Government cost accounting.
    (2) Treat services offered by non-traditional contractors 
as commercial items, which reduces the Government-unique 
overhead on such contractors.
    (3) Focus the initial selection of contractors on multiple-
award contracts on technical qualifications, with price and 
value evaluated only for subsequent task orders, while raising 
the protest threshold for Department of Defense task orders 
from $10.0 million to $25.0 million.
    (4) Adopt several provisions to strengthen and enhance the 
role of small businesses in the 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 $32 billion of the Department of Defense's total budget, 
it also represents a major investment area requiring the same 
rigorous planning, analysis, 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. It remains to be seen if these 
reductions are driving any real change in how the Department 
does business, or whether those reductions are made with any 
strategic plan in mind.
    The committee continued to review the Department's IT 
investment planning and review processes, as well as specific 
acquisitions, to improve the ability to identify and reduce 
unwarranted duplication and eliminate programs of little value 
to the warfighter. The committee has paid particular attention 
to how the Department leverages the commercial marketplace, as 
well as the various IT systems of the Department where 
egregious programmatic failures have been made to provide 
lessons for future acquisitions. The committee has focused on 
how the IT investments of the Department will contribute to 
future warfighting capability, and support a defensible 
architecture that is resilient to cyber attacks, while 
maintaining the command and control to support mission needs.
    The committee held related hearings on February 25, 2015, 
``Information Technology Investments and Programs: Supporting 
Current Operations and Planning for the Future Threat 
Environment''; and a hearing on March 22, 2016, ``Fiscal Year 
2017 Information Technology and Cyber Programs for Foundations 
for a Secure Warfighting Network.''
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee included several reporting requirements related to 
information technology, including a report on plans for 
expansion of the Civil Support Team Information Management 
Systems, and a report by the Comptroller General of the United 
States assessing the Department of Defense's actions and 
measures to address the risk of losing access to its current 
source of trusted leading-edge microelectronics.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included: a provision that revises section 
2222 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
responsibilities for the management of defense business 
systems; a provision that amended chapter 21 of title 10, 
United States Code, by adding a new section that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official of the 
Department of Defense to act as an executive agent for open 
source intelligence tools; a provision that limits the 
availability of funds for the Army's Distributed Common Ground 
System to 75 percent of the funds authorized to be obligated by 
the program until the Secretary of the Army conducts a review 
of the program planning; a provision that limits the 
availability of funds for the Special Operations Command's 
Distributed Common Ground System to 75 percent of the funds 
authorized to be obligated by the program until the Commander, 
U.S. Special Operations Command conducts a review of the 
program planning; a provision that requires an assessment of 
open technology standards applicable to Department of Defense 
procurements for IT systems; a provision that requires the 
Department of Defense to conduct a business case analysis to 
determine the most cost effective and efficient way to acquire 
common network services; a provision that requires a cloud 
strategy for a secret level of classified information and the 
Secret Internet Protocol network; a provision that modifies the 
requirements applicable to a major automated information system 
program that fails to achieve a full development decision 
within 5 years; and a provision that limits the authority of 
the Secretary of the Army to obligate more than 75 percent of 
the total authorized amount of fiscal year 2016 program funds 
for the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army until a report 
is provided on the program.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included a provision 
that would limit the availability of funds for cryptographic 
systems and key management infrastructure programs until the 
Department reports of the coordination of such efforts.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee included several reporting requirements related to 
information technology, including: a briefing on the roadmap 
for development and fielding of the open architecture version 
of the Distributed Common Ground System for the Air Force; a 
briefing on the analysis of the human capital needs of the 
Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer; a briefing on 
the Department's use of information technology asset tracking 
technology; a briefing on the status of the implementation of 
the current Cloud Access Program; a briefing on the best 
practices and lessons learned for use and configuration for the 
Host Based Security System; a briefing on how insider threat 
capabilities are planned to be integrated into the Joint 
Information Environment; a strategic plan for the Defense 
Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center; and a briefing 
on the Secretary of Defense's plans to ensure a continued 
domestic source of strategic-hardened trusted microelectronics.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes: a provision that would require 
modifications to the training and fielding plan for the 
currently fielded version of the Army's Distributed Common 
Ground System; a provision that would require the restructuring 
of future versions of the Army's Distributed Common Ground 
System; a provision that would require the Department to 
modernize the security clearance information technology 
architecture for the federal government as well as a proposed 
implementation plan for moving some clearance investigation 
processes back to the Department; a provision that would 
require a strategy for assured access to trusted 
microelectronics; a provision that would allow for a pilot 
program to rapidly evaluate commercial information technology 
systems for defense needs; a provision that would require a 
review of policies and guidance related to the use of anti-
competitive specifications in information technology 
acquisitions; a provision that would modify and expand the 
information technology exchange program; a provision that would 
repeal the requirements for Major Automated Information Systems 
by September 30, 2017; a provision that would modify the 
responsibilities of the Department of Defense Chief Information 
Officer in title 10; a provision that would allow for an 
exemption from requirement for capital planning and investment 
control for information technology equipment included as an 
integral part of a weapon or weapon system; a provision that 
would allow for the increased use of commercial data 
integration and analysis products for the purpose of preparing 
financial statement audits; a provision that would require a 
strategic plan for the Defense Information Systems Agency; and 
a provision that would limit the ability of the Air Force to 
declare full operational capability for the Joint Regional 
Security Stacks until operational testing has occurred.

        ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    As part of the committee's emphasis on defense reform, it 
undertook significant oversight and legislative action in the 
114th Congress to improve 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 and to maintain U.S. technological 
superiority.
    In 2015, the committee focused its oversight on 
streamlining Department of Defense management headquarters, to 
include creating greater accountability in headquarters budgets 
and personnel and better insight into Department efforts to 
implement actual and planned reductions. Subsequently, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) contained a provision to require the Department to 
implement a 25 percent reduction to headquarters activities and 
conduct a comprehensive review of headquarters, administrative, 
and support functions.
    In 2016, the committee reviewed the 30-year old Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99-433) and engaged with numerous experts across 
the defense, academic, and private sector communities to 
examine opportunities for organizational and joint matters 
reform. In July 2016, the committee held a hearing with outside 
experts on ``Goldwater-Nichols Reform: The Way Ahead,'' and 
received a briefing from senior Department of Defense leaders 
on how potential Goldwater-Nichols reforms would affect 
Pentagon management and operations. S. 2943, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, contains 
several Goldwater-Nichols reform-related provisions, including 
a restructuring of the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 
elevate research and engineering, better focus acquisition and 
sustainment activities, and improve oversight and management of 
the Department's ``fourth estate,'' as well as a review of the 
combatant command structure. S. 2943 would also enhance the 
responsibilities and tenure of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff; revise the definition of ``joint duty matters'' to 
better reflect the types of joint duty positions for which an 
officer may receive joint duty credit; and reduce the number of 
general and flag officers, as well as senior executive service 
personnel, by roughly 11 percent, to address concerns about the 
growth in headquarters and command senior staff. Lastly, S. 
2943 would also include reforms to the National Security 
Council.

                               Readiness


                                OVERVIEW

    The Subcommittee on Readiness focused oversight in the 
114th Congress on Department of Defense training, logistics, 
maintenance, military construction, installations, family 
housing, civilian personnel management, and energy and the 
environment. The committee remains concerned about the 
detrimental impacts to military readiness wrought by the Budget 
Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). The cumulative impacts 
of this law include lost training opportunities, delayed or 
deferred ship deployments, missed depot availabilities, 
deferred maintenance requirements, and added stress to service 
men and women.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness held multiple hearings and 
briefings focused on the readiness of the military services. 
Witnesses spoke of the degraded state of readiness throughout 
the force. Military leaders testified it would take years to 
achieve full-spectrum readiness for any future conflict with a 
near-peer competitor.
    Subcommittee-sponsored travel included congressional 
delegations to visit military and civilian leaders in the 
Republic of Iraq, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Arab Republic of 
Egypt in the Middle East; the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Northern Ireland, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of 
Belgium, Republic of Poland, Republic of Latvia, and Republic 
of Estonia in Europe; and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
Kingdom of Thailand, Malaysia, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
Republic of the Philippines, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 
Okinawa, Territory of Guam, Saipan, and Tinian in Asia and the 
Pacific. Subcommittee staff visited numerous domestic and 
overseas military posts, bases, training centers, arsenals, 
depots, and shipyards to hear from uniformed leaders, see 
firsthand their training, listen to their readiness concerns, 
and observe their military construction activities.

                            FORCE READINESS

    The committee focused oversight on the cumulative impacts 
of underfunding readiness, in particular the operation and 
maintenance, military construction, facilities sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization accounts. The Subcommittee on 
Readiness held multiple hearings on the subject involving the 
Department of Defense and each of the military services, both 
active and reserve components. Witnesses detailed the continued 
erosion of readiness throughout the force, asking not only for 
increased funding but funding stability as well. The lack of 
adequate and stable funding resulting from the Budget Control 
Act (Public Law 112-25) and delayed appropriations force the 
services to defer maintenance on real property, increasing 
future costs. The conflict in Syria, the rise of the Islamic 
State of Iraq and the Levant, and regional aggression by Russia 
and China were also noted as factors pressuring military 
readiness. For the services, this meant continuous overseas 
deployments and little opportunity to conduct deferred 
maintenance on major end items or undergo long-neglected 
training for high-end threats. The continued drawdown of force 
strength, particularly in the Army, exacerbated readiness 
challenges. The committee took note of an increasing number of 
aircraft accidents and raised concern that this category of 
equipment could be the first glimpse into a larger future 
readiness crisis. In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, the committee directed the Comptroller General of 
the United States to conduct an assessment of the Department's 
plans to rebuild readiness, conduct an assessment of Army and 
Air Force training requirements, and review the Navy's 
Optimized Fleet Response Plan. H. Rept. 114-537 also directed 
the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to 
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives on rotary-wing aviation 
readiness and safety.

Army

    The Army fully funds the maximum number of brigade combat 
team rotations through its Combat Training Centers, which it 
views as a crucial requirement for a return to training for 
full spectrum combat operations. In repeated testimony and in 
roundtable discussions with committee Members, Army military 
and civilian leaders emphasized that returning to full spectrum 
readiness following years of preparing primarily for 
counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would take 
years. Army leaders anticipated that they would achieve full 
spectrum readiness no earlier than 2021. This timeline, they 
added, would be difficult to accelerate but was at risk given 
the current scheduled drawdown of Army end strength and budget 
instability. Army leaders were concerned that they were 
continuing to do as much with fewer available forces, and 
emphasized that while confident that deploying units were fully 
prepared, their readiness came at the expense of units either 
recovering from deployments or preparing to deploy.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness shared these concerns and 
noted the fragility of the readiness of just-deployed and next-
to-deploy units, which was highlighted during hearings and 
field visits. Committee members noted that new training 
opportunities in Eastern Europe as a result of European 
Reassurance Initiative funding increased unit readiness as well 
as partner-nation capacity. The committee received briefings 
and provided oversight on other Army-led training initiatives 
such as Pacific Pathways and the Regionally Aligned Force in 
U.S. Africa Command.

Navy and Marine Corps

    The committee remains concerned that high operational tempo 
leaves insufficient time and resources to adequately repair and 
refit Navy ships and aircraft. The Subcommittee on Readiness 
heard in testimony that the Navy's attempt to maximize ship 
employability through its Optimized Fleet Response Plan 
remained at risk due to deferred maintenance now coming due and 
unplanned or extended deployments. Navy leaders emphasized that 
ships on extended deployments often required additional, 
unplanned, and time-consuming repairs upon their return. In 
both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee included 
additional funds for ship and aircraft depot maintenance in an 
attempt to address the backlog of Navy maintenance 
requirements.
    Like the Army, the Marine Corps is experiencing higher-
than-expected operational tempo and reduced force structure. 
Marine Corps leaders expressed similar concerns with next-to-
deploy units, whose readiness suffered in order to ensure 
deploying units were ready. Of particular concern was the lack 
of cumulative flying time for Marine Corps aviators, whose 
skills were in danger of atrophying due to lack of flying time 
caused in large part by the lack of availability of aircraft 
due to maintenance backlogs.

Air Force

    The committee found that the Air Force's operational tempo 
has not lessened with combat operations increasing in the 
Middle East as a result of the rise of violent extremist 
organizations. The imbalance between introduction of the F-35 
and the sunsetting of older airframes exacerbates maintenance 
and manning challenges. The reduction in the F-35 replacement 
rate for older aircraft worsens the readiness challenges by 
forcing competition for scarce resources between legacy 
platforms and beddowns for the new. These legacy airframes are 
experiencing increased engine and structural fatigue, 
deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of component 
failures. While the Air Force is also concerned about a 
shortage of pilots, in testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Readiness, Air Force leaders stated their biggest readiness 
concern is a shortage of 4,000 mechanics.

                         LIFE-CYCLE SUSTAINMENT

    Without appropriate and timely input from the logistics 
community, decisions made during system design can create 
unnecessary sustainment problems that drive millions of dollars 
in depot-level maintenance once the system is fielded. The 
committee focused on reducing the total-ownership costs of 
weapon systems and equipment by ensuring the Department of 
Defense is developing, procuring, and modernizing weapon 
systems and equipment with consideration of life-cycle support 
and sustainment requirements and cost. In its oversight of the 
Department's life-cycle sustainment efforts, the committee 
monitored the implementation of section 2337 of title 10, 
United States Code, which requires that each major weapon 
system be supported by a product support manager and section 
832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81), which requires additional visibility 
of the operation and support of major weapon systems. The 
committee included provisions in S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, that address the role 
of Technical Data Rights in life-cycle sustainment and how the 
costs are shared between private and Government agencies and 
contracts. Section 844 of S. 2943 would provide a requirement 
for the ``Review and Report on Sustainment Planning in the 
Acquisition Process''. This review would address sustainment 
matters throughout the process: requirements generation, 
research and development, acquisition, cost estimating, and 
programming and budgeting. The committee also held the 
Department accountable for improving its estimations of total 
weapon system life-cycle costs to better inform sustainment 
strategies, such as the cost effectiveness of acquiring 
technical data from original equipment manufacturers to allow 
future changes in sustainment path. Furthermore, the committee 
continued its oversight of the Department's corrosion control 
efforts and monitored resourcing of corrosion prediction and 
prevention efforts with a focus on increasing the service life 
of weapon systems while reducing long-term sustainment costs. 
S. 2943 includes two specific provisions that would address the 
topic of corrosion control: section 322, ``Revision of Guidance 
Related to Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives'', and 
section 954, ``Modification to Corrosion Report''.

                      DEPOT AND ARSENAL CAPABILITY

    A critical piece of equipment sustainment is the capability 
provided by the Nation's organic arsenals and depots, including 
air logistics centers and shipyards. The committee is concerned 
about the long-term health of the organic industrial base 
during an extended period of unstable and unpredictable 
funding, which has led to a prolonged period of significant 
fluctuation in workloads across the organic industrial base. 
While some military departments have completed an organic 
industrial base sustainment plan, the committee is concerned 
that the Department of Defense continues to lack a 
comprehensive strategy to ensure U.S. military depots and 
arsenals are viably positioned and 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 examine how previous efficiency 
initiatives and workforce reductions impact depot and arsenal 
capability, how more recent initiatives to increase arsenal and 
depot visibility among program managers and program executive 
offices are working, and how well programs and plans designed 
to assure the availability of critical organic manufacturing 
capabilities are being executed.

                           CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

    The committee remained concerned about the Department of 
Defense's strategic workforce planning for its civilian 
personnel. The committee sought to provide the Department with 
additional means to effectively manage its Federal civilian 
workforce. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) significant provisions included requiring 
reductions in force of Department of Defense civilian personnel 
to be based primarily on performance, and lengthening the 
probationary period for new employees from 1 to 2 years.
    In 2016, the Department unveiled a series of military and 
civilian personnel proposals called ``Force of the Future.'' 
The committee received several briefings on the Department's 
legislative proposals and scrutinized their usefulness. S. 
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2017, contains many of these proposals, including several 
provisions that would give the Department direct hire authority 
for multiple categories of employees, in particular for the 
organic industrial base, the Major Test and Range Facilities 
Base, and some post-secondary students and recent graduates; an 
increase in the maximum amount of voluntary separation 
incentive pay the Department can offer civilian employees; and 
a provision that would allow temporary and term-limited 
employees to qualify for non-competitive permanent appointment 
to the civilian service. Most of these provisions are temporary 
and require the Department to provide reports on their 
effectiveness in order to extend or make the authority 
permanent in the future.

                         ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

    The committee conducted oversight of the Department of 
Defense's energy activities in the 114th Congress. This 
included close examination of the strategies and policies for 
both installation energy and operational energy to enhance 
combat capabilities, strengthen mission assurance and 
resiliency, and reduce operating costs for the Department. In 
addition, the committee closely monitored the Department's 
policies and programs related to legacy and emergent 
environmental contamination and response plans. Finally, the 
committee continued its oversight and efforts to mitigate 
potential impacts to military training and operations due to 
energy developments in proximity to military installations.

Operational Energy

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included several 
provisions regarding operational energy policy, to address the 
procurement of alternative fuels. Public Law 114-92 amended 
subchapter II of chapter 173 of title 10, United States Code, 
to prohibit Department of Defense funds from being used to make 
bulk purchases of drop-in fuel for operational purposes, unless 
the cost of that drop-in fuel is cost-competitive with 
traditional fuel. In addition, as directed by the committee 
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee requested 
the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency to provide a 
briefing that addresses the process used to evaluate and 
determine whether an alternative fuel is cost-competitive with 
conventional fuels, including the use of any funds provided by 
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. Finally, S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision 
amending section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) to allow the 
Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement of section 526 
for the procurement of fuel if in the interest of national 
security.

Installation Energy

    With respect to installation energy, the committee focused 
its oversight on the implementation and efficacy of the 
Department of Defense's current programs. As directed by 
committee report (H. Rept. 114-270) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee 
was briefed by the General Accounting Office on the degree to 
which the Department has identified benefits, as well as 
challenges, from its net zero installation initiatives, and any 
areas where improvements are needed. As direct by the committee 
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee also 
requested the Comptroller General of the United States to 
review the extent to which the Department of Defense is 
effectively leveraging appropriations to repay developers for 
alternatively financed energy savings, efficiency, or 
generating capacity projects, details on energy savings, 
efficiency, and generating capacity projects financed since 
2012, reliability of reported project energy savings and 
efficiency performance, and to what extent the Department's 
installations utilities budgets have been encumbered to repay 
contractors in energy savings performance contracts, utilities 
energy services contracts, or other alternative project 
financing.
    Furthermore, in H. Rept. 114-537, the committee was 
supportive of efforts by the Department and encouraged the 
Department to better leverage and integrate existing 
authorities to ensure installations have resilient, available, 
reliable, and continuous power during disruptions to the 
electrical supply, prioritizing facilities supporting mission 
critical functions and done under an enterprise approach and in 
a manner that is cost-effective and based on assessed 
vulnerabilities. To that end, S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, includes a provision 
that would allow energy resiliency and energy security projects 
to be funded using the Department's Energy Conservation 
Investment Program (ECIP).

Energy Siting and Encroachment

    The committee has continued to monitor potential impacts on 
military training and operations posed by energy developments 
proposed near military installations. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) 
amended section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to 
expand coverage of the Siting Clearinghouse to requests for 
informal reviews by Indian tribes and landowners, clarify that 
information received from private entities is not publicly 
releasable, eliminate categories of adverse risk, and limit 
applicability of section to only energy projects. In addition, 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-270) to accompany the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee directed the Department of Defense to report on the 
science, standards, assumptions, and criteria by which the 
Department assesses the risk to military missions or training 
ranges. Finally, in S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for the Fiscal Year 2017, the committee included a 
provision that would amend section 44718 of title 49, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to 
include the interests of national security, as determined by 
the Secretary of Defense, in the Secretary of Transportation's 
aeronautical studies and reports required under this statute in 
regards to structures interfering with air commerce.

Environment

    The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues 
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military 
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to 
include the military services' environmental restoration 
program and adherence to Federal, state, and local cleanup, 
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. There have 
been several areas of emerging concern to include protecting 
the Department's training, testing, and operations from 
encroachment, emerging contaminates that may require 
remediation by the Department, and the ability for the 
Department to operate in the Arctic.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included a section to chapter 631 of title 
10, United States Code, to provide for the conservation needs 
of the Southern Sea Otter while continuing the protections for 
military readiness activities at important offshore islands in 
the Southern California Bight.
    Public Law 114-92 also modified section 2602(2)(B) of title 
15, United States Code, to add exclusion of any component of 
any article, including shot, bullets and other projectiles, 
propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article, 
and primers.
    The committee continued oversight of the engineering 
assessment of Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility and in 
the committee report (H. Rept. 114-270) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
directed a follow-up briefing not later than 30 days after the 
date of approval of the best available practicable 
technological solutions for tank repairs.
    The committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 began 
what is anticipated to be a long term assessment on the 
Department's response to health advisory levels for 
perfluororooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate 
(PFOS) chemicals found in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam used to 
fight fires. Specifically, the committee directed the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 
Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2017, regarding the 
Departments efforts and initiatives in response to significant 
concern on the basis of evidence showing exposure to PFOS and 
PFOA may have led to indications of toxicity in humans. 
Specifically, the briefing should address: the Department's 
current policies regarding PFOA and PFOS; the programmatic 
approach being taken by the Department of Defense to identify, 
investigate, and respond to the presence of PFOA and PFAS at 
military installations; and the programmatic approach to the 
removal and replacement of PFOAs and PFOSs in AFFF firefighting 
foam.

                Military Construction and Infrastructure


                                 BASING

    The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant 
change in force structure both in the United States and 
overseas as a result of the drawdown of military forces from 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Global Defense Posture 
Review, and budgetary pressures being placed on the Department 
of Defense. These rebasing movements affect not only U.S. 
global presence, but they may also have significant 
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military 
construction, and quality of life for military members and 
their families.
    The committee has been specifically interested in ensuring 
the Department of Defense has the requisite tools and 
capabilities to support the Pacific rebalance effort. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) included a section that authorized construction 
funds for a public waste water improvement project to support 
the realignment of military forces from Okinawa to Guam. In 
Public Law 114-92, the committee took further action to also 
authorize support for the construction of a cultural repository 
to store sensitive artifacts uncovered during the military 
construction program for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air 
Force posture initiatives on Guam.
    Further supporting the oversight of the Pacific rebalance 
effort, Public Law 114-92 also required the Department to 
submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees 
for each of fiscal years 2017-26 that would address the total 
amount contributed from the Government of Japan to support the 
United States Relocation to Guam Account during the most recent 
year, as well as the anticipated contributions to be made 
during the current and next Japanese fiscal years.
    The committee also provided oversight of the Department's 
European Consolidation Initiative, receiving multiple briefs on 
the planned base closures, mission support infrastructure 
consolidation and funding strategy for reduction in European 
military presence. Further, the committee received briefs on 
infrastructure investments required to support the European 
Reassurance Initiative in Eastern Europe, those infrastructure 
builds that improved training opportunities and multi-modal 
options for U.S. forces.
    While not specific to a single geographic area, the 
committee took several steps to increase oversight on the 
overseas posture and infrastructure requirements of the 
Department. Specifically, Public Law 114-92 included a 
provision that required specific reporting requirements on the 
goals and operational requirements, anticipated infrastructure 
investments required, and terms of the agreements with the host 
nation for newly designated overseas cooperative security 
locations, forward operating sites, and main operating bases. 
In addition, in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a briefing on the development of facility requirements 
for overseas enduring locations supporting contingency 
operations and how improvements are being made to improve the 
long-term infrastructure planning and programming process.
    The committee also assessed the Department of Defense's 
request for an additional round of Base Realignment and Closure 
(BRAC). Public Law 114-92 retained the BRAC restriction from 
previous years, including language that stated nothing in the 
Act shall be construed to authorize a future BRAC round. 
However, in an effort to better inform Congress and standardize 
the military service assessments, Public Law 114-92 included a 
provision for the Department to conduct an excess 
infrastructure capacity assessment based on current 
infrastructure data and fiscal year 2012 force structure 
levels. The restriction on carrying out another round of BRAC 
was also included in S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2017.

                   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING

    With regard to construction programming, the committee 
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited 
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to 
address emerging construction requirements. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) contained a provision that authorized the use of operations 
and maintenance funds for contingency construction. This 
provision was again carried in S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2017.
    Public Law 114-92 authorized a $150 million per year pilot 
program for the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions 
from the Government of the State of Kuwait through fiscal year 
2020 in support of construction, maintenance, and repair 
projects within Kuwait that are mutually beneficial to the 
Department of Defense and the Kuwait military forces. This 
provision was further modified by S. 2943 to extend the 
authorization through fiscal year 2030.
    Further, Public Law 114-92 aligned Reserve Component minor 
construction and repair thresholds with the thresholds 
specified in chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, 
fixing an oversight in the authority changes from the previous 
year.
    Finally, the committee undertook a number of legislative 
initiatives aimed at providing the Department with additional 
tools and flexibility to manage and invest in their facilities. 
Public Law 114-92 included a provision establishing a pilot 
program for laboratory facility modernization by allowing up to 
$150.0 million in research, development, test, and evaluation 
funds to be used per year for military construction projects 
supporting any Department of Defense Science and Technology 
Reinvention Laboratory or Department of Defense federally 
funded research and development center. The authority lasts for 
5 years and would require projects to be requested by the 
Department and authorized as part of the national defense 
authorization act. S. 2943 would amend section 2811 of title 
10, United States Code, to reclassify facility conversion 
projects as repair, allowing work within the existing 
dimensions of a facility to be considered repair and utilize 
operations & maintenance funding instead of limited military 
construction funds. In addition, S. 2943 would increase the 
minor military construction threshold for laboratory 
revitalization projects from $4.0 million to $6.0 million while 
adding in a congressional notification requirement for such 
projects.

          REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND DISPOSAL

    The real property management process requires extensive 
oversight to maintain more than $850.3 billion in 
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $37.0 billion, or 
nearly 7.5 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision to enhance the 
authority to accept conditional gifts of real property on 
behalf of the military service academies, if the gift of such 
real property is conditioned upon the property bearing a 
specified name. The committee authorized the military service 
academies to accept such a gift if the acceptance and naming 
would not reflect unfavorably on the United States, and the 
real property has not otherwise been named by an act of 
Congress.
    In addition, Public Law 114-92 authorized a land exchange 
at Mare Island Army Reserve Center, Vallejo, California, and 
Navy Outlying Landing Field, Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, 
Florida; released property interests retained in connection 
with Fort Bliss Military Reservation, Texas; and provided 
additional land withdraw for Naval Air Weapons Station China 
Lake, California. S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for 2017, includes additional land conveyances at the High 
Frequency Active Auroral Research Program facility in Gakona, 
Alaska, Campion Air Force Radar Station in Galena, Alaska, 
Colbern Army Reserve Center in Laredo, Texas, and St. George 
National Guard Armory in St. George, Utah. S. 2943 also 
includes a provision that would authorize the exchanges of 
Federal and non-Federal lands and take other actions required 
to expand the boundaries of the Utah Test and Training Range 
and mitigate possible encroachment on the range.
    The committee reviewed the Department of Defense facility 
sustainment accounts and found significant shortfalls that must 
be addressed to manage and sustain the mission. The committee 
increased funding to these accounts in both Public Law 114-92 
and S. 2943 to address shortfalls in the facility sustainment 
accounts to partially support systemic facility sustainment 
deficits.

             Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues


 MANPOWER SUFFICIENT IN QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO MEET GLOBAL COMMITMENTS

    Some argue that military personnel costs have exploded and 
will continue to rise to unsustainable levels. The committee 
rejects that assertion because such a budget-oriented focus 
misses the fundamental question that the committee addressed: 
What does the Nation need in terms of the quantity of manpower 
and the quality of that manpower to meet its current and future 
global military commitments, without undue risk to the Nation. 
In this context, the fiscal year 2015 budget request proposed 
to continue to reduce the end strengths of the Army and Marine 
Corps by 100,000 over a 5-year period, which began with the 
fiscal year 2013 budget request, bringing both services down to 
approximately pre-9/11 levels.
    The committee remains concerned with the planned reductions 
while the military services face potential challenges from 
near-peers and are still engaged in stability operations in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, advisory and training missions 
in the Republic of Iraq and numerous smaller engagements 
throughout the world. Reflecting that concern, the committee 
continued to provide detailed oversight of military manpower 
levels and force structure during the first session of the 
114th Congress. The committee remained concerned with the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) impacts on the 
ability of the military services to maintain manpower levels 
sufficient to meet the National Military Strategy. The 
committee supported the end strengths of the military services 
as requested in the President's budget in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
which continued the pre-planned budget-driven reduction of 
service end-strength. The committee supported the requested 
end-strengths while closely monitoring the effect on readiness.
    In the second session of the 114th Congress, the committee 
addressed the concern about reductions and the impacts of a 
continued end-strength draw-down by stopping the draw-down of 
both the Active and Reserve Components and by increasing the 
end-strength levels above the 2016 levels in S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The 
committee continued to provide aggressive oversight of military 
manpower levels and force structure to ensure they met the 
requirements of the National Military Strategy. This oversight 
sought to provide Active, Guard and Reserve Forces that have 
manpower levels sufficient to sustain varying scales of 
activation, while maintaining deployment ratios at or above 
Department of Defense objectives. On March 3, 2016, the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met to receive a round-table 
briefing on the military personnel posture for fiscal year 
2017. With that focus, the committee continued to examine 
closely trends in overall total force structure requirements, 
end strength, recruiting, retention, morale, benefits and 
compensation changes that will enhance the future force.

  MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND MILITARY RESALE PROGRAMS

    While some have criticized the Morale, Welfare, and 
Recreation (MWR) and military resale programs (commissary and 
exchange stores) as being unnecessary, wasteful and targeted 
for reductions in appropriated funding, the committee believes 
the cost efficient sustainment of MWR and military resale 
programs is required to protect quality of life in military 
communities and maintain the combat readiness of the force. The 
committee continued to provide oversight efforts directed 
toward that end.
    The committee believes that MWR and military resale 
programs must remain competitive with private sector entities 
to ensure that service members and their families benefit fully 
from these programs. The committee monitored current practices 
and policies to ensure that MWR and military resale programs 
are employing the full range of strategies available to private 
sector competitors to inform authorized patrons about the 
benefits associated with these programs and attract them to 
participate. This is especially true for commissaries that are 
restricted from using pricing, product, and advertising 
strategies that are common in the private sector because of 
legislative and policy barriers. The Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the Department of 
Defense to review management, food, and pricing options for the 
Defense Commissary System in consultation with an organization 
experienced in grocery retail analysis to assist in maintaining 
a competitive and effective commissary system in the future.
    During the 114th Congress, the committee continued to 
review and to propose changes to the commissary system, many 
based on the results of the study directed in Public Law 113-
291. The Boston Consulting Group's results form the basis for 
reforms in the military resale system that was considered as 
part of S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017. The goal of the reform effort is to maintain 
the enduring savings achieved by military families using the 
commissary system while reducing the commissary's reliance on 
appropriated funds for its operations. In this effort the 
subcommittee has met for closed briefings on resale reform with 
the Department of Defense along with the Boston Consulting 
Group to hear and discuss the results of their study, and has 
considered the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission results on military resale reform.
    On September 17, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel met to receive the recommendations and the results of 
the military resale study conducted by the Boston Consulting 
Group. On October 23, 2015, the subcommittee met for a 
roundtable briefing on the Department of Defense views on 
military resale reform. This briefing set the stage for 
commissary reform and focused on the Department of Defense 
views on the reform recommendations. On January 13, 2016, the 
subcommittee met to hear testimony from the Department of 
Defense on the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission's recommendations on military resale 
reform. On September 13, 2016, the subcommittee continued it 
oversight efforts and met to receive a roundtable briefing on 
an update on commissary reform from the Department of Defense. 
The committee's oversight on commissary reform led to the 
inclusion of major commissary reform in S. 2943.

                   MILITARY BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION

    During the 114th Congress, the Department of Defense budget 
remained under considerable stress and military benefits were 
targeted for reductions. The committee gave close scrutiny to 
proposals from the Department of Defense and other 
organizations, both Government and private sector, calling for 
funding reductions to military compensation and other benefit 
programs to ensure any proposed change fully assesses the 
impact to the All-Volunteer Force. The committee continued to 
monitor compensation programs during the first and second 
sessions of the 114th 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.
    On February 11, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel met to receive testimony on the final recommendations 
from the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 
Commission. On March 17, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel met for a closed Member roundtable on the retirement 
and quality of life recommendations from the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to focus 
on military retirement reform. Finally on March 25, 2015, the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met to receive testimony on 
the stakeholder's views on the recommendations of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. These 
oversight meetings contributed to the inclusion of the reform 
of the military retirement system in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
which authorized the implementation of a new military 
retirement system based on the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations.
    The subcommittee's oversight of pay and allowance issues 
led the committee as part of S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, to recommend no change 
to current law, which would require the by-law 2.1 percent 
raise in basic pay during fiscal year 2017 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. The committee extended the authorities 
to pay bonuses and special pays during fiscal year 2016 and 
fiscal year 2017 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 
increased the pilot bonus to begin to address the Air Force's 
pilot shortage.
    On September 17, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive the 
recommendations and the results of the military resale study 
conducted by the Boston Consulting Group. On October 23, 2015, 
the subcommittee met for a roundtable briefing on the 
Department of Defense views on military resale reform. This 
briefing set the stage for commissary reform and focused on the 
Department's views on the reform recommendations. On January 
13, 2016, the subcommittee met for its first hearing on the 
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission's 
recommendations on military resale reform. On September 13, 
2016, the subcommittee met to receive a roundtable briefing to 
receive an update on commissary reform from the Department. The 
committee's active oversight on commissary reform led to the 
inclusion of major commissary reform in S. 2943.
    On December 9, 2015, the subcommittee met to hear testimony 
from the stakeholders on the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), 
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) financial offset. A 
provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) established a Special Survivor 
Indemnity Allowance (SSIA) for surviving spouses who are the 
beneficiary of the SBP annuity and have their annuity partially 
or fully offset by the DIC. This allowance was due to expire at 
the end of fiscal year 2017. The committee's oversight in this 
area led to an extension of the SSIA until May 31, 2018, in S. 
2843.

         MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

    A continued principal focus of the committee during the 
114th Congress was the adequacy and effectiveness of mental 
health services provided to members of the Armed Forces and 
their families. Particular attention was given to the suicide 
prevention efforts undertaken by each military service and the 
consistency and comprehensiveness of the Department of Defense 
policy on prevention of suicide among members of the Armed 
Forces and their families, including methods of collecting and 
assessing suicide data. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
met on June 15, 2015, for a briefing on military suicide 
prevention programs from the Department of Defense and the 
military services.
    The committee continues to be concerned that access to 
mental health services for service members and their families 
remains limited. The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) encouraged the Secretary 
of Defense to utilize existing direct hire authorities to fill 
vacancies in critical health care occupations, such as mental 
health specialists. In addition, S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would require the 
Department to maximize the use of telehealth capabilities to 
expand access to increase the availability of critical health 
care services.

                     SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY

    The committee continued to focus on the effectiveness and 
viability of Department of Defense and the military services' 
sexual assault prevention and response programs, with a 
particular emphasis on victim care and support. The committee 
also conducted a holistic review of the military justice system 
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to ensure the 
system effectively and efficiently holds offenders of all 
crimes appropriately accountable. The committee's work was 
informed by the independent assessments of the Judicial 
Proceedings Panel, as well as the thorough review of the UCMJ 
conducted by the Military Justice Review Group.
    The committee also provided oversight of the Department's 
implementation of the recommendations by the Responses Systems 
to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel to improve programs and 
policies to prevent and address sexual assaults involving 
members of the Armed Forces. Finally, the committee focused on 
efforts to prevent and address retaliation and ostracism of 
members of the Armed Forces who report sex-related crimes.
    The committee continued to provide robust oversight of the 
Department of Defense and the military departments' sexual 
assault prevention and response efforts. On February 4, 2015, 
the committee received the initial report of the Judicial 
Proceedings Panel. The report identified several areas for 
improvement, including recommendations to further enhance and 
standardize the Special Victims Counsel (SVC) program, as well 
as a recommendation to streamline changes to the UCMJ. These 
recommendations, along with substantial feedback from DOD and 
other stakeholders, informed the sexual assault provisions in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92).
    In furtherance of the committee's continued oversight of 
the Department's efforts to prevent future sexual assaults, the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel also met to receive a closed 
briefing on June 24, 2015, on the implementation of the 
recommendations of the reviews following the sexual assault 
incidents at Lackland Air Force Base and to receive an update 
on the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
Program.
    Public Law 114-92 included a substantial number of 
bipartisan reforms designed to further refine the SVC program 
and the UCMJ. Specifically, these provisions:
          (1) Expand the SVC program to authorize SVCs to 
        provide legal advice to Department of Defense civilian 
        employees;
          (2) Direct the Secretary of Defense to standardize 
        the content and timeline for SVC training;
          (3) Direct the Secretary of Defense to examine the 
        process for implementing statutory changes to the UCMJ;
          (4) Require timely notification to sexual assault 
        victims of the availability of SVC;
          (5) Enhance confidentiality of restricted reporting 
        of sexual assault in the military by preempting any 
        State law requiring certain professionals to report the 
        personally identifiable information of a sexual assault 
        victim;
          (6) Direct the Department of Defense to enhance 
        prevention and response for sexual assaults in which a 
        male member is the victim;
          (7) Prevent retaliation against service members who 
        report or intervene on behalf a sexual assault victim;
          (8) Require retention of all case notes in sex-
        related investigations of the military departments for 
        at least 50 years;
          (9) Direct the Secretary of Defense to develop 
        procedures to streamline the implementation guidance 
        regarding UCMJ changes;
          (10) Modify the Rules for Court-Martial to prohibit 
        giving a less than favorable rating to SVCs because 
        they zealously represented their clients; and
          (11) Modify Military Rule of Evidence 304 to conform 
        to the Federal court rules on admissibility of the 
        corroboration of confessions, to the extent the 
        President considers practicable.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes substantial bipartisan reforms designed to 
improve the fairness and efficiency of the UCMJ. These reforms 
are largely based on the 2015 recommendations of the Military 
Justice Review Group, a group of experts convened by the 
Secretary of Defense at the urging of Congress. The group was 
tasked with proposing changes that would modernize the UCMJ. 
The resulting provisions would:
          (1) Enhance victims' rights through greater 
        opportunities for input on disposition decisions at the 
        preliminary stages of the case;
          (2) Improve efficiency by authorizing a military 
        magistrate program, much like civilian Federal courts, 
        for the disposition of lower-level offenses;
          (3) Improve transparency by providing for public 
        access to court documents and pleadings;
          (4) Standardize court-martial panel sizes (12 in 
        capital cases, 8 in general courts-martial, and 4 in 
        special courts-martial) and number required to convict 
        (3/4);
          (5) Improve visibility over sentencing data by 
        requiring military judges who are sentencing the 
        accused to adjudge a distinct sentence for each offense 
        for which the accused was found guilty, rather than the 
        current system under which the military judge adjudges 
        a single sentence for all offenses (known as unitary 
        sentencing);
          (6) Expand the statute of limitations for child abuse 
        offenses and fraudulent enlistment;
          (7) Create several new offenses, including 
        prohibiting retaliation; inappropriate relationships 
        between a military recruit or trainee and a person in 
        position of special trust; fraudulent use of credit and 
        debit cards; and offenses concerning Government 
        computers; and
          (8) Relocate several established offenses from the 
        general article (Article 134) and establishes them as 
        individual articles.

                      MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

    The committee is committed to maintaining a robust Military 
Health System (MHS) whose primary responsibility is readiness 
of the force. To accomplish this goal, the committee undertook 
a comprehensive review of the MHS to identify necessary reforms 
to sustain the long term viability of the system. To that end, 
the committee, particularly the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel, focused oversight and legislative activities to make 
certain that the MHS can sustain trained and ready healthcare 
providers to support the readiness of the force and a quality 
healthcare benefit that is valued by its beneficiaries. The 
committee's efforts were focused in three areas: medical 
readiness, the MHS structure, and the TRICARE benefit.
    During the first session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met several times to discuss 
the military health care system and recommendations from the 
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 
On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel met 
to receive testimony from stakeholders on the recommendations 
of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 
Commission. The subcommittee also met on March 19, 2015, for a 
roundtable on the health care recommendations from the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. Lastly, 
on June 11, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Department of Defense views on the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations for 
military health care reform.
    The committee continued oversight through a series of 
activities focused on developing recommendations for a military 
health care reform legislative package. On November 4, 2015, 
the subcommittee met for a closed briefing on Health Insurance/ 
TRICARE 101. The subcommittee also met on November 18, 2015, 
for a briefing from former military Surgeons General on 
military health care reform. Subcommittee staff conducted a 
series of oversights visits to Military Treatment Facilities 
(MTF) to hear views on military health care from beneficiaries, 
MTF staff, and leadership.
    The committee's efforts culminated in the most significant 
health care reform in decades. S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would ensure medical 
readiness; modernize the MHS and simplify the TRICARE benefit 
by directing the Department of Defense to establish a Joint 
Education and Trauma Training Directorate to create enduring 
partnerships with civilian trauma centers where military trauma 
surgeons and their teams can treat critically injured patients 
in the volume needed to maintain clinical proficiency; 
establish a Joint Trauma System to establish standards of care 
for all trauma services provided within the military health 
system; establish an executive-level management office within 
the Defense Health Agency to manage health care operations, 
budget, information technology and medical affairs across the 
military treatment facilities while preserving the 
responsibilities of the commanders of the facilities to ensure 
the readiness of the force and the missions of the military 
services' Surgeons General to man, train and equip the medical 
force. Further access to urgent care would be expanded and no 
longer require prior authorization, and primary care clinics 
within MTFs would be required to be open beyond standard 
business hours.
    The TRICARE benefit would be improved by establishing 
TRICARE Preferred as the self-managed, preferred provider 
option that would replace TRICARE Standard and Extra. A future 
enrollment fee for current retirees under TRICARE Preferred 
would be contingent upon independent validation of improved 
network adequacy. A revised fee structure for military 
personnel entering service after January 1, 2018, would 
guarantee continuity of generous healthcare benefits for the 
future force.
    On September 8, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on H.R. 4298: Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act 
and H.R. 5458: Veterans TRICARE Choice Act. The Veterans 
TRICARE Choice Act would allow retired TRICARE beneficiaries to 
opt out of TRICARE to become eligible for a Health Savings 
Account.
    The committee continued oversight on the progress towards 
implementing the requirements for an electronic health record 
that is inter-operable with the electronic health record of the 
Veterans Administration by closely monitoring expenditures and 
acquisition activities and through quarterly updates from the 
Department of Defense Program Executive Officer. The committee 
is concerned with the planned delay in completing initial 
implementation in the northwest.

                          WOUNDED WARRIOR CARE

    The committee continued to assess the adequacy of the 
Department of Defense policies and programs for wounded and 
disabled service members and their families. In this regard, 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel met on February 3, 2015, 
to receive testimony on the current status of the military 
services' programs that support the recovery of wounded and 
injured service members and their families and to assess the 
effectiveness of the support for the wounded and injured 
personnel. The subcommittee focused on policies regarding 
selection of individuals who work with wounded and injured 
personnel, access to medical care, service members 
transitioning from the military, support for injured and 
wounded members of the Reserve Component, and the Department's 
plans for maintaining the wounded warrior programs in the 
future. In addition, to evaluate the Department's ability to 
integrate and coordinate the multitude of services and 
resources available to assist the wounded and disabled with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the committee received a report 
of the status of programs authorized by section 1614 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181) as directed by the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
    The committee remained concerned over the Army's plan to 
consolidate Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) as the number of 
wounded and injured in the existing WTUs were greatly reduced. 
The committee was also concerned about complaints received from 
wounded warriors about the way they were treated in some Army 
WTUs. The committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel, engaged in discussions with the Army Warrior 
Transition Command leadership regarding the consolidation 
plans. In addition, Public Law 114-92 directed the Comptroller 
General of the United States to evaluate whether there are 
systemic mistreatment issues in the Army WTUs and the Army's 
plan to maintain the WTU capability with fewer soldiers and 
resources. Oversight activities also included several staff 
visits to the military services' units responsible for the 
care, recovery and transition of wounded, ill, and injured 
service members.
    The committee continued to provide oversight on the 
timeliness of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The 
committee monitored, through quarterly reports from the 
Department of Defense 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.

                       MILITARY FAMILY READINESS

    The committee focused on the needs of military families who 
continue to experience the strains associated with deployments. 
The committee recognized the risk to the viability of family 
programs as end strengths of the Armed Forces are reduced and 
resources shrink. The committee engaged in discussions with the 
Department of Defense and the military services to ensure that 
family programs continue to provide robust support to needs of 
family members. Of particular concern is the availability of 
child care services on military installations and the 
significant backlog of military parents waiting to enroll their 
children in military Child Development Centers. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to 
reduce the backlog by 50 percent by October 1, 2017. In 
addition, the committee recognizes the challenges children of 
military families face as a result of multiple deployments and 
the tragedy of a loss of a military parent. S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to support non-profit 
organizations that provide camp experiences to military 
children who have experienced the death of a parent, a parent 
with substance abuse disorder or post-traumatic stress 
disorder.

                 PRISONER OF WAR AND MISSING IN ACTION

    During the 114th Congress, the committee continued active 
oversight of the Department of Defense's Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action (POW/MIA) activities. The committee 
specifically focused on the implementation of modifications to 
the requirements for accounting for members of the Armed Forces 
and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing 
by establishing a single defense agency for POW/MIA affairs 
directed by the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291). Committee staff met on numerous occasions with 
the leadership of the new Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency 
(DPAA) to discuss progress in integrating the two former 
agencies under the DPAA. During the first session of the 114th 
Congress, committee staff visited the DPAA headquarters in 
Hawaii for an orientation to the new facilities and to hear 
views on the consolidation from DPAA employees.
    Further, the committee continued to assess the progress 
towards meeting the requirement that the accounting effort 
achieve significantly higher levels of identification that was 
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Of particular concern are the 
challenges associated with declassification procedures for 
documents greater than 25 years old that may aid in the 
location of persons that are MIA. To that end, H.R. 4909, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as 
passed by the House, directed the Secretary of Defense to 
identify inefficiencies in the process to declassify documents 
that, if addressed, could improve recovery efforts.

                            WOMEN IN SERVICE

    During the 114th Congress, the committee built upon the 
work of the 113th Congress towards ensuring that opening all 
military occupations to women will enhance the warfighting 
capabilities and readiness of the Armed Forces. The committee 
began an extensive effort to evaluate the military services' 
process for developing gender-neutral occupational standards 
established for each occupational specialty that was opened to 
women. The committee received numerous staff level briefings on 
the progress toward completing gender-neutral occupational 
standards. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) required the Secretary 
of Defense to add readiness to the criteria for gender-neutral 
occupational standards.
    The committee focused on the military services' assessment 
activities undertaken to assess the impact of opening the 
remaining combat arms military occupational specialties (MOS) 
to female soldiers. Committee staff visited Marine Corps Air 
Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms to observe the activities 
of the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force established 
by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to assess the effect of 
gender integration in closed and open MOS, closed MOS units and 
readiness. Committee staff also traveled to Fort Benning, 
Georgia, to observe the Army Ranger Assessment Program that 
included women as course participants as well as women as 
observers in preparation for opening the Ranger School to 
women.
    Following the conclusion of the military services' 
assessment activities and the Secretary of Defense's 
announcement that all remaining MOS would be open to women, the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met for a briefing from the 
Department of Defense and the military services on the data 
collection and methodology of the Women in Service Review. 
Committee staff received briefings on the military services' 
personnel policies and assignment practices for the newly 
opened occupational specialties and the long-term plans for 
assuring retention and advancement for women in newly opened 
career fields.

                  Modernization and Investment Issues


                                OVERVIEW

    During the 114th Congress, the committee devoted particular 
attention to the examination of military equipment 
modernization strategies with respect to overall military 
readiness capability and capacity against all threats and 
adversaries. The committee conducted oversight of the full 
range of issues facing Department of Defense modernization and 
investment programs to include the impacts of current budget 
uncertainty and sequestration. The committee, through rigorous 
oversight and legislative action, developed and implemented 
strategies to help mitigate cost growth and schedule delays, as 
well as enacted needed acquisition reform initiatives among all 
categories of acquisition programs to help streamline the 
overall development process. In particular, the committee has 
worked to ensure the military services have the appropriate 
authorities, capabilities, and force structure to defend 
against any potential challenges posed by the advanced anti-
access/area-denial, and multi-domain capabilities of countries 
such as the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, 
and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

                           MARITIME AVIATION

    The committee provided extensive oversight of the Navy's 
unmanned maritime programs and a new Navy program entitled 
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike 
Systems (UCLASS). The Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany 
S. 1356, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016 (Committee Print No. 2), stated ``that the Navy should 
develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-
launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of 
missions in a non-permissive environment.'' The Joint 
Explanatory Statement also included that ``such an aircraft 
should be designed for full integration into carrier air wing 
operations--including strike operations--and possess the range, 
payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to 
complement such integration.'' The Joint Explanatory Statement 
also indicated support to obtain additional information as to 
the UCLASS program and the integration of this capability into 
overall carrier air wing.
    The budget request for fiscal year 2017 included support 
for a new unmanned aviation program entitled MQ-25 to replace 
the UCLASS program. S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2017, supported MQ-25, but in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee noted 
that ``the Navy may be excluding a critical capability and 
precluding future growth in a platform that will likely be 
integrated into the carrier air wing for the next 30 years.'' 
The report also indicated ``the committee continues to believe 
that the effectiveness of the carrier and its air wing would be 
enhanced by the development of an unmanned carrier-based 
aircraft capable of penetrating in a non-permissive environment 
and conducting strike.''

          ARMY AND MARINE CORPS ARMORED VEHICLE MODERNIZATION

    During the 114th Congress, committee activity focused on 
providing oversight that would continue to ensure that the 
existing fleet of armored combat vehicles were upgraded and 
reset after very heavy use in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and that the Army and Marine 
Corps continued to develop and resource vehicle modernization 
strategies that are informed by realistic and affordable 
operational requirements, as well as incorporate requirements 
that address the evolving anti-vehicle threat posed by 
improvised explosive devices and advances in anti-tank guided 
missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. The committee's efforts 
centered on ``restoring readiness'' through near-term 
incremental modernization efforts that capitalize on 
acquisition reform initiatives to better streamline the 
development and fielding of solutions to the warfighter in a 
timely manner. Consistent with committee oversight activity 
from the 113th Congress, the committee also continued to assess 
and mitigate the impacts of budget uncertainty and 
sequestration on the armored combat vehicle industrial base.
    The committee devoted particular focus on the following 
Army and Marine Corps vehicle modernization program strategies: 
Amphibious Combat Vehicle Increment 1.1 program; Stryker Combat 
Vehicle lethality upgrade program; Armored Multi-Purpose 
Vehicle program; Abrams Main Battle Tank program; Hercules 
Improved Recovery Vehicle program; the Bradley Fighting Vehicle 
program; and the initiation of the Army's mobile protected 
firepower development program to help ``enhance the tactical 
mobility and lethality for infantry brigade combat teams.''
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
hearing on March 19, 2015, on the budget request for fiscal 
year 2016 that addressed the effectiveness of Army and Marine 
Corps ground force and rotorcraft modernization programs, given 
the complex security environment: ``Fiscal Year 2016 Ground 
Force Modernization and Rotorcraft Modernization Programs.'' 
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also held two 
classified briefings that focused on combat vehicle 
modernization: June 25, 2015, ``Current and Emerging Threats to 
U.S. Combat Vehicles''; and December 10, 2015, ``The Future of 
Land Warfare and Combat Vehicle Modernization.'' For fiscal 
year 2017, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
held a hearing on March 2, 2016, entitled ``Army and Marine 
Corps Ground Force Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year 
2017 Budget Request'' to review combat vehicle modernization 
efforts for the Army and Marine Corps. The subcommittee also 
held a hearing on February 10, 2016, entitled ``The 
Recommendations from the National Commission on the Future of 
the Army,'' to review the Commission's findings and 
recommendations to include those associated with concerns 
related to equipment capability and capacity. The subcommittee 
held a briefing on June 8, 2016, on the Marine Corps Ground 
Combat Tactical Vehicle modernization strategy as a follow-on 
to the March 2nd hearing.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee required the Secretary of the Army to provide a 
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 
30, 2016, on the potential force structure changes and 
production programs necessary to achieve a pure fleet of M1 
Abrams tanks across the Army, and directed the Secretary of the 
Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by February 
15, 2016, on what the current and long-terms plans are for 
modernizing the remaining Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) authorized an additional $40.0 million for Abrams 
Tank modifications to help sustain critical industrial bases 
for Forward Looking Infrared programs, as well as 
transmissions. Public Law 114-92 authorized an additional $72.0 
million for Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles, an unfunded 
requirement identified by the Chief of Staff of the Army. 
Public Law 114-92 also authorized an additional $411.0 million 
for lethality upgrades to improve the combat capability of 
Stryker Combat Vehicles currently deployed in Europe; this 
funding addressed an urgent operational need from forward 
deployed forces.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included additional 
funding for several combat vehicle modernization programs to 
address unfunded requirements as identified by the Chief of 
Staff of the Army: an additional $90 million for vehicle active 
protection systems to counter emerging threats, in particular 
for those vehicles operating in Europe; an additional $72.0 
million for Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles; an additional 
$60.0 million for continued Abrams tank modifications to help 
maintain critical sub-tier industrial base suppliers for 
transmissions and Forward Looking Infrared programs.
    Both H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, and S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 
contained legislation that would require the Secretary of the 
Army and the Secretary of the Navy to establish and maintain 
policy guidance regarding the establishment of, and updates to, 
fire suppressant and fuel containment standards for combat 
vehicles, an area of concern for members of the committee. Both 
H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, and S. 2943 provided 
legislation that would require an assessment on the ways, and 
associated costs, to reduce or eliminate shortfalls in 
responsiveness and capacity in several critical Army 
modernization capabilities, such as combat vehicles.
    The staff of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces also met with officials representing the Government 
Accountability Office to discuss areas for improvement in Army 
acquisition and processes requirements generation as part of 
the Army's overall combat vehicle modernization strategy. The 
staff also conducted oversight visits to each of the 
contractors' production facilities who are actively 
participating in the Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle 
program.

            ARMY AND MARINE CORPS TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES

    During the 114th Congress, the committee oversight activity 
on tactical wheeled vehicles (TWV) focused on the Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, the Ground Mobility Vehicle 
program, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 
recapitalization strategies, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
Vehicle divestment strategies, divestment strategies for all 
TWVs, and the consolidation of the TWV industrial base. Of 
particular interest to the committee was the JLTV program. The 
committee provided significant oversight on JLTV cost, 
schedule, and performance as the program transitioned from 
development into low-rate initial production. The committee 
also continued to coordinate with the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) regarding the Department's efforts in the long-
term management and sustainment of the TWV fleet and its 
associated industrial base.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces has 
engaged in oversight work with the GAO to begin a comprehensive 
review of the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base. 
Furthermore, the subcommittee also closely monitored the Army's 
concept and way forward for improving combat capability of 
Infantry Brigade Combat Teams that would consist of developing 
and procuring three new combat tactical vehicles: the ground 
mobility vehicle, lightweight reconnaissance vehicle, and 
mobile protected firepower vehicle programs. The committee has 
supported the Army's efforts for improving the tactical 
mobility and combat effectiveness of light infantry units and 
will continue to closely monitor these programs in the next 
Congress.
    During the 114th Congress, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces held hearings and briefings on the budget 
request for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 that reviewed the 
effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground force and 
rotorcraft modernization programs against current and future 
threats, as well as provided oversight on current acquisition 
strategies, to include tactical wheeled vehicles such as the 
JLTV and HMMWV recapitalization programs.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) authorized the President's budget request 
for the JLTV program. Both H.R. 4909, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, 
and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 
2017, required the implementation of new policy guidance 
regarding the establishment of, and updates to, fire 
suppressant and fuel containment standards that meet 
survivability requirements across various classes of tactical 
wheeled vehicles. Both H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, and 
S. 2943 provided an additional $50.0 million for new production 
HMMWV ambulances, a critical requirement for the Army Reserve 
and Army National Guard.

                         ARMY AVIATION PROGRAMS

    During the 114th Congress, legacy rotorcraft platforms, 
including the CH-47, UH-60, and AH-64, continued to be operated 
at high operational tempos in very challenging environments. As 
a result of these high operational tempos, continued upgrade 
and reset efforts were required for these legacy platforms. The 
committee focused oversight efforts on the need to continue to 
upgrade and reset these critical equipment platforms for both 
the Active and Reserve Components through formal activities and 
legislative action. The committee activity during the 114th 
Congress built on the actions from the 113th Congress. With 
respect to rotorcraft programs, oversight activities focused on 
the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI); unfunded 
requirements for Army and Marine Corps rotorcraft 
modernization; and the continued need for upgraded aircraft 
survivability equipment (ASE), in particular ASE for those 
rotorcraft engaged in Operation Inherent Resolve. The committee 
also conducted oversight on the initiation of modernization 
programs, such as the Joint Future Vertical Lift program, as 
well as the critical need to rapidly develop and field advanced 
aircraft survivability equipment upgrades to provide warning 
and protection against evolving surface-to-air missile threats.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
hearing on the budget request for fiscal year 2016 to address 
the effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground force and 
rotorcraft modernization programs, given the complex security 
environment. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
held a classified briefing on June 18, 2015, to gain a better 
understanding of the current and future threats facing U.S. 
rotorcraft. On March 16, 2016, the subcommittee held a hearing 
on Department of Defense rotorcraft modernization programs to 
conduct oversight on the budget request, and covered additional 
issues such as the Army's ARI, the requirements for rotorcraft 
survivability equipment and degraded visual environment 
technology, the Marine Corps V-22 tiltrotor program, and the 
Air Force's strategy to replace the UH-1N rotorcraft currently 
used for security at nuclear sites and complexes. The 
subcommittee also held a hearing on the recommendations from 
the National Commission of the Future of the Army, where the 
Commission's recommendations regarding the Army's ARI were 
discussed in detail. Based on this hearing, the committee 
concurred with the Commission's recommendation regarding the 
ARI, which would retain some AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in 
the Army National Guard, as well as noted the requirement to 
permanently station a combat aviation brigade in Korea, as well 
as in Europe.
    H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016, as passed by the House, authorized an 
additional $95.5 million to accelerate an additional 8 UH-60A 
to UH-60L conversions for the Army National Guard. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee 
also noted the maturity of the current AH-64E production line 
and future year requirements encouraged the Secretary of the 
Army to seek congressional approval of a multiyear contract 
award in the fiscal year 2017 budget request for AH-64E Apache 
Attack helicopters. Such a multiyear contract could potentially 
save over a hundred million dollars over a 5-year period.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included section 111 that required the 
Chief, National Guard Bureau to issue guidance within 180 days 
after the date of the enactment of the Act that prioritized UH-
60 helicopter upgrades within the Army National Guard to those 
units with the highest flight hour aircraft and highest 
utilization rates. Public Law 114-92 included section 113 that 
required the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2016, that 
contained detailed options for the potential acceleration of 
the replacement of all UH-60A helicopters of the Army National 
Guard. Public Law 114-92 authorized an additional $128.0 
million for 8 additional UH-60M Black Hawks for the Army 
National Guard. Public Law 114-92 authorized an additional 
$110.0 million that addressed an Army unfunded requirement for 
improved countermeasures to better protect deployed AH-64E 
helicopters against the latest and most lethal threats. Public 
Law 114-92 included section 1054 that limited transfers of 
certain AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Army National Guard 
to the regular Army.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included legislation 
informed by subcommittee activity to include: authorized 
multiyear procurement (MYP) contract authority for AH-64 Apache 
attack helicopters, and UH-60M and HH-60M Black Hawk utility 
helicopters, and also authorized a study by a federally funded 
research and development center (FFRDC) on technologies with 
the potential to prevent and mitigate helicopter crashes. H.R. 
4909, as passed by the House, also included additional funding 
to address unfunded requirements as identified by the Chief of 
Staff of the Army, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force: an additional $440.2 million for 36 UH-
60M helicopters; an additional $190.0 million for 5 AH-64E 
helicopters; an additional $110.0 million for 17 UH-72 light 
utility helicopters; an additional $72.0 million for CH-47 
Chinook heavy lift helicopter modifications; an additional 
$150.0 million for 2 V-22 tilt rotorcraft to prevent a break in 
the current multiyear procurement contract; and an additional 
$80.0 million for the Air Force UH-1N replacement program. H.R. 
4909, as passed by the House, also provided an additional 
$180.7 million for rotorcraft survivability equipment.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, would authorize MYP contract authority for AH-64Es, 
UH-60Ms, and HH-60Ms. S.2943 would also authorize the FFRDC 
study on technologies with the potential to prevent or mitigate 
helicopter crashes. S. 2943 authorized an additional $13.3 
million for rotorcraft survivability equipment.

                      ARMY COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS

    Given the growing importance of battlefield communications 
networks in global combat operations, the committee continued 
to aggressively monitor the Army's plans for its future 
battlefield network and the supporting research programs now in 
place, to include rigorous oversight of the Army's Tactical 
Network Modernization roadmap. From an Army communications 
perspective, the focus of committee activity during the 114th 
Congress remained on ensuring full and open competition for 
Army communication and network programs, working to ensure 
innovation and timely improvements to legacy systems, and 
reviewing the acquisition strategy for the Warfighter 
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) program.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
hearing on the budget request for fiscal year 2016 to address 
the effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground force and 
rotorcraft modernization programs, given the complex security 
environment. The subcommittee held a hearing, ``Army and Marine 
Corps Ground Force Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year 
2017 Budget Request'' where Army and Marine Corps tactical 
network and communications program were reviewed in detail, 
specifically the Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit Radio 
(HMS), the Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio (MNVR) program, 
and the WIN-T program.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee continued to support the Army's larger vision of a 
radio marketplace that drives innovation and technology 
improvement over the course of the program. The committee also 
supported moving forward with an accelerated competition for 
both the dismounted and mounted versions of the Manpack radio 
and driving to produce improvements through the planned 
delivery order competition.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included section 237 that required a 
federally funded research and development center to conduct a 
comprehensive assessment of current and future requirements and 
capabilities of the Army with respect to air-land ad hoc, 
mobile tactical communications and data networks, including the 
technological feasibility, suitability, and survivability of 
such networks.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee directed the Secretary of the Army and the Director 
of the Defense Technology Security Administration to provide a 
briefing on the potential use of new radio waveforms for 
tactical communications that may be available via a non-
developmental item acquisition approach, and the potential 
effects of U.S. Government policy changes on this industrial 
sector and on the ability of warfighters and our international 
partners to access innovative radio technologies. The committee 
also noted its support for the goals of the MNVR program and 
noted the importance of modernizing battlefield communications 
as a critical priority for the Army. The committee encouraged 
the Army to maintain its testing schedule and, if testing 
proves successful, its production schedule in order to meet 
fielding requirements.

            ORGANIZATIONAL CLOTHING AND INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT

    The committee continued to devote substantial attention to 
the oversight of the research, development, and procurement of 
organizational clothing and individual equipment and other 
complementary personal protective equipment programs during the 
114th Congress. The committee focused efforts primarily on the 
Army's soldier protection system, small arms modernization 
strategies and associated industrial base, modular handgun 
system, enhanced small caliber ammunition programs, as well as 
ongoing weight reduction and acquisition strategies for 
personal protective equipment (PPE).
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a 
hearing on the budget request for fiscal year 2016 that 
addressed the effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground 
force and rotorcraft modernization programs, given the complex 
security environment. The subcommittee held a hearing on Army 
and Marine Corps Ground Force Modernization Programs and the 
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request where issues related to Army 
and Marine Corps individual equipment were discussed in detail 
such as: weight reduction efforts for PPE, PPE specifically 
designed for female soldiers and marines, advances in combat 
helmet technology, the modular handgun system test and 
evaluation program, and standardizing enhanced small caliber 
ammunition between the Army and Marine Corps.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee continued to highlight the importance of modernizing 
and reducing weight for PPE and small arms. The committee 
continued to encourage and recommend a weapon system approach 
to PPE acquisition, in particular body armor, with an 
established procurement line item for PPE that could improve 
the performance of these systems through more enhanced 
integration efforts. The committee continued to encourage the 
Department of Defense (DOD) to take the necessary actions to 
maintain at least two vendors as part of the PPE critical 
industrial base for hard and soft armor components. In H. Rept. 
114-102, the committee also directed the Secretary of Defense, 
in coordination with the senior military services acquisition 
executives, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on 
Armed Services by March 1, 2016, on the current state of the 
small arms production industrial base.
    As a result of rigorous oversight activity performed by the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, to include 
meetings with senior DOD and military officials as well as 
industry coalitions regarding PPE acquisition reform measures, 
H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016, as passed by the House, included section 860 that 
required the Secretary of Defense to use to the maximum extent 
practicable best value contracting strategies instead of lowest 
price, technically acceptable strategies for PPE acquisition. 
H.R. 1735, as passed by the House, also required the Secretary 
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2016, regarding the current use of two 
different types of 5.56mm ammunition in combat by the Army and 
the Marine Corps.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included section 884 that ensured best 
value criteria is used to the maximum extent practicable for 
PPE. Public Law 114-92 authorized the budget request for fiscal 
year 2016 for the Army's Soldier Protection System, and 
authorized full funding for Department of Defense PPE programs. 
Public Law 114-92 required the Secretary of the Army and 
Secretary of the Navy to jointly submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees on Army and Marine Corps 
modernization plans for small arms. Public Law 114-92 also 
required a study on the use of different types of enhanced 
small caliber ammunition by the Army and Marine Corps.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee supported the advancement of the development and 
procurement of lighter, stronger, and more advanced PPE systems 
for all soldiers, while also ensuring women entering combat 
roles are fully and correctly equipped. The committee also 
directed a briefing on the plans to improve current body armor 
and PPE systems, as well as consider the specific needs of 
female warfighters, and required the Comptroller General of the 
United States to review all Department of Defense individual 
equipment initiatives being resourced to help ``lighten the 
warfighters load.''
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included legislation 
that required the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Army 
and the Marine Corps are using one standard type of enhanced 
5.56mm rifle ammunition in combat, not later than one year 
after the date of the enactment of the Act. H.R. 4909, as 
passed by the House, also provided an additional $22.0 million 
for Marine Corps enhanced combat helmets, fully funding an 
unfunded requirement as identified by the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps. H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, also included 
legislation that required the Army and Marine Corps to develop 
a joint acquisition strategy for PPE and organizational 
clothing and individual equipment specifically designed to meet 
the unique physical requirements of female service members.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, would require the Secretary of Defense to 
standardize enhanced 5.56mm small caliber ammunition for the 
Army and Marine Corps.

                        FIGHTER FORCE STRUCTURE

    During the 114th Congress, the committee continued to 
investigate the adequacy of fighter force structure in both the 
Navy and the Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and 
Land Forces held a hearing on these issues on March 26, 2015: 
``Combat Aviation Modernization Program and the Fiscal Year 
2016 Budget Request.'' The Navy witness testified that F/A-18A/
B/C/D aircraft are reaching the end of their projected service 
life and will require replacement or modifications to further 
extend their service life to eventual deployment of the F-35 
aircraft. The witness noted that the Department of the Navy's 
strike fighter shortfall is projected to reach 134 aircraft in 
2020. Also at the hearing on March 26, 2015, the Air Force 
witness testified to an Air Force requirement for 1,900 fighter 
aircraft, but fiscal constraints resulted in a need to retire 
fighter aircraft leaving the Air Force significantly below its 
requirement of 1,900 fighter aircraft. The Air Force noted that 
it planned to retire about 164 A-10 aircraft in fiscal year 
2016. To maintain remaining force structure, Air Force 
officials informed the subcommittee that any shortfall 
mitigation will include: executing funded sustainment and fleet 
management actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30, and 32 
aircraft; newer block 40 and 50 service life extension; and 
targeted modernization and examination of the overall force 
structure to ensure viable warfighting capabilities are 
maintained.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also held 
a hearing on the F-35 program on April 14, 2015: ``Update on 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program and the Fiscal Year 
2016 Budget Request.'' For fiscal year 2017, the subcommittee 
held a hearing on February 4, 2016, ``Naval Strike Fighters: 
Issues and Concerns''; a hearing on March 23, 2016, ``Update on 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program and the Fiscal Year 2017 
Budget Request''; a field hearing at Wright-Patterson Air Force 
Base on June 18, 2016, ``Air Dominance and the Critical Role of 
Fifth Generation Fighters''; a follow-on hearing to the 
aforementioned field hearing on July 13, 2016, ``Air Dominance 
and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighters.''
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) authorized an increase of 12 F/A-18F 
aircraft for the Navy, an increase of 6 F-35B aircraft for the 
Marine Corps, and the requested procurement to extend the life 
of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B fleets. Public Law 114-92 also 
authorized the entire Air Force request for modifications to 
its A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35 fleets, and included a 
provision that prohibited the Air Force from retiring any A-10 
aircraft until after December 31, 2016, but allowed only 18 A-
10 aircraft to be placed into back-up inventory status. 
Additionally, Public Law 114-92 authorized the budget request 
of $9.2 billion for 57 F-35 aircraft and $1.9 billion for F-35 
development.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included legislation 
that would prevent retirements of A-10 aircraft, but would 
allow the Secretary of the Air Force to transition the A-10 
unit at Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base, Indiana, to an F-16 
unit in fiscal year 2018, as the Secretary had proposed in the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2017. H.R. 4909, as 
passed by the House, provided an additional $1.4 billion for 11 
additional F-35 aircraft to address unfunded requirements 
identified by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Chief of 
Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps. H.R. 
4909, as passed by the House, also provided an additional $1.4 
billion for 14 additional F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, similar to H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, would 
prevent retirements of A-10 aircraft, but would allow the 
Secretary of the Air Force to transition the A-10 unit at Fort 
Wayne Air National Guard Base, Indiana, to an F-16 unit in 
fiscal year 2018, as the Secretary had proposed in the 
President's budget request for fiscal year 2017, and also 
requires Government Accountability Office to assess the 
conclusions and assertions contained in the Secretary and Chief 
of Staff's report on the F-35A Initial Operational Test and 
Evaluation. S. 2943 would also prohibit the availability of 
funds for the Air Force to be obligated for the purpose of 
scrapping, destroying, or otherwise disposing of any A-10 
aircraft in any storage status in the Aerospace Maintenance and 
Regeneration Group that have serviceable wings or other 
components that could be used to prevent total active inventory 
A-10 aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable 
status due to unserviceable wings or other components.

                                  F-35

    During the 114th Congress, the committee continued 
oversight of the F-35 program.
    At a hearing on April 14, 2015, before the Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces, ``Update on the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter (JSF) Program and the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget 
Request,'' the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Director 
of Acquisition and Sourcing testified that technical challenges 
in 2014 forced the Department of Defense to make unexpected 
changes to its development and testing plans, and that key 
challenges affecting the program were a structural failure on 
the F-35B durability test aircraft, an engine failure, and 
higher-than-expected amount of test growth largely to address 
software rework. The GAO witness also noted that F-35 system 
reliability has been limited by poor engine reliability, which 
will take additional time and resources to achieve reliability 
goals. The GAO witness additionally noted that affordability 
remains the biggest challenge facing the program since annual 
procurement costs are expected to rise from $14 to $15 billion, 
and remain at that level for nearly a decade, while other 
significant fiscal demands weigh on the Department of Defense 
and the Nation.
    On June 23, 2014, an F-35A stationed at Eglin Air Force 
Base, Florida, had a serious flight mishap resulting from an 
engine failure and fire. The cause of the engine failure and 
fire was determined to be excessive rubbing between an engine 
stator and adjacent plate seals. The F-35 Joint Program Office 
and the engine manufacturer have identified both short-term and 
long-term corrections to this problem. The flight test schedule 
has been minimally affected. The committee continues to monitor 
both the short-term and long-term corrections to F-35 engines.
    Members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
also participated in a congressional delegation to Eglin Air 
Force Base, Florida, to receive briefings, interact with F-35 
pilots and maintenance personnel, and to observe F-35 
operations on March 27, 2015. Among other issues, committee 
Members noted significant unit-level problems with the maturity 
and accuracy of the F-35 autonomic logistics information 
system, a system which is used to determine the F-35's 
maintenance status and direct required maintenance actions.
    With some minor reductions, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
authorized the budget request of $9.2 billion for 57 F-35 
aircraft and $1.9 billion for F-35 development, and provided an 
increase of $846.0 million for 6 additional F-35B aircraft for 
the Marine Corps. Public Law 114-92 also included a provision 
requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of 
the F-35's engine program that will include an assessment of 
the reliability, growth and cost history of the engine; and a 
thorough assessment of the F-35 engine fire on June 23, 2014. 
Additionally, Public Law 114-92 included a provision requiring 
the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report 
on the F-35 autonomic logistics information system that 
includes fielding status, development schedule, views of 
maintenance personnel, the effect of the autonomic logistics 
information system on F-35 operational availability, the 
ability of the autonomic logistics information system to be 
deployed on ships and land-based locations, and costs for 
developing and fielding the system.
    On June 18, 2016, and July 13, 2016, the Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces held hearings both entitled, ``Air 
Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighter 
Aircraft.'' The witnesses in these two hearings informed the 
committee that near-peer adversaries were closing a fighter 
aircraft capability and capacity gap with U.S. forces, and that 
the currently planned procurement rate of 48 F-35A aircraft per 
year would not be sufficient to address Department of the Air 
Force fighter aircraft shortfalls and requirements.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, contained legislation 
that directed the Comptroller General of the United States to 
conduct an analysis of the sustainment support strategy for the 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. H.R. 4909, as passed by the 
House, also included an additional $1.4 billion for 11 
additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to address unfunded 
requirements as identified by the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, contains legislation that would: require the 
Secretary of Defense, no later than March 31, 2017, to submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report on potential 
options for the future management of the Joint Strike Fighter 
program; require the Secretary of Defense, not later than March 
31, 2017, to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
report that contains the basic elements of an acquisition 
program baseline for F-35 JSF Block 4 follow-on modernization 
program; and direct the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct an analysis of the sustainment support 
strategy for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

                         BOMBER FORCE STRUCTURE

    The committee continues to maintain rigorous oversight of 
our nation's bomber fleet. With regard to B-21 force structure, 
the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 
directed the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to 
the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017, that 
estimates the number of B-21 bomber aircraft needed to meet the 
combatant commanders' requirements. The report, which may 
include a classified annex, shall include: a detailed 
explanation of the strategy and associated force-sizing-and-
shaping-constructs, associated scenarios and assumptions used 
to conduct the analysis; a range of numbers to meet 
requirements for B-21 bombers given best-case and worst-case 
assumptions, and the associated risk based on Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff risk management classifications; and a 
detailed transition plan that integrates the B-21 into the 
current bomber fleet through 2040. Additionally, section 238 of 
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2017, requires the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a 
semiannual report to the congressional defense committees and 
the Comptroller General of the United States on the B-21 bomber 
aircraft program.
    With regard to overall bomber force structure, section 150 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) required the Secretary of the Air Force to 
notify Congress of any proposed bomber retirements as well as 
the rationale for such retirement, the effects of the 
retirement, and how the Secretary will mitigate any risks 
relating to the retirement.
    As to B-21, the committee notes that the Secretary of the 
Air Force has proposed significant investments for technology 
development and engineering, manufacturing and development. In 
the budget request for fiscal year 2016, the administration 
requested $1.25 billion to support B-21. However, Public Law 
114-92 authorized $566.2 million, as a result of a late 
contract award. The budget request for fiscal year 2017 
included $1.36 billion and was fully authorized in S. 2943. The 
committee will maintain aggressive oversight of the new bomber 
acquisition strategy to ensure that the Air Force develops an 
affordable aircraft to timely meet future requirements.
    With regard to legacy bombers, the committee continues to 
ensure that the Air Force maintains, modernizes, and upgrades 
the existing fleet of bomber aircraft in order to preserve 
effective capabilities needed to meet current and future threat 
target sets. Public Law 114-92 and S. 2943 authorized the 
modernization funds requested by Air Force for the B-1, B-2, 
and B-52 aircraft. The committee will continue to maintain 
oversight of current bomber aircraft inventory requirements and 
modernization plans to ensure that the Air Force maintains a 
sufficient, credible, and lethal fixed-wing aircraft with 
conventional and strategic weapons delivery capability to 
support all aspects of the national military strategy.

                       AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT

    During the 114th Congress, the committee maintained active 
oversight of Air Force aerial refueling aircraft modernization 
and recapitalization programs. Until the KC-46A is operational 
and procured in sufficient numbers, the KC-135 and KC-10 will 
remain the primary providers of U.S. air-refueling. As such, 
the committee included section 146 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
which placed a prohibition on the availability of funds for 
retirement of KC-10 aircraft with few exceptions to be 
determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Additionally, the 
committee supported the Secretary of the Air Force's efforts to 
modernize the avionics of the KC-10 fleet of tankers to 
maintain relevant and effective aerial refueling capabilities 
by fully funding the Air Force's modernization request.
    With regard to the KC-135 fleet, limited fiscal resources 
are available to the Air Force for recapitalization of all 395 
aircraft, necessitating the continued maintenance and operation 
of legacy aircraft. Consequently, the committee supported the 
Secretary of the Air Force's efforts to modernize avionics of 
the KC-135 fleet by fully funding the Air Force's modernization 
request in Public Law 114-92 and S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Furthermore, the 
committee continues to provide aggressive extensive oversight 
intended to ensure the timely and efficient recapitalization of 
the Air Force's KC-135 tanker fleet with new KC-46 aerial 
refueling aircraft. As such, the committee supports the 
Secretary of the Air Force's continued investment in this 
program.

                 INTERTHEATER AND INTRATHEATER AIRLIFT

    The committee provided close oversight of Air Force 
intertheater and intratheater airlift aircraft inventories and 
capabilities to ensure that a robust and effective fleet of 
airlift aircraft is maintained in the Air Force inventory to 
meet all mobility airlift requirements of the Department of 
Defense. Regarding intertheater airlift aircraft capabilities, 
the committee included section 147 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), 
which restricted funds for transfer of C-130H aircraft. This 
restriction applies until 90 days after the Air Force and Army 
jointly certify to the Committees on Armed Services of the 
Senate and House of Representatives that they have met the 
requirements required in section 147.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned about the Air 
Force's plans to adequately fund C-130H modernization programs 
that are critical to ensuring the future utility of this 
aircraft. Accordingly, Public Law 114-92 and S. 2943, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 
authorized additional funds for C-130 AMP, C-130H Electric Prop 
Control System, C-130H In-flight Prop Balancing System, Eight 
Bladed Propeller, and the T-56 3.5 Engine Mod.

                        SURFACE WARFARE 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. Through 
its oversight activities, the committee faces the challenge of 
balancing current demands on an aging fleet within current 
economic constraints. As of December 15, 2015, the Navy 
indicated they currently support 272 deployable battle force 
ships. This available force structure contrasts the Navy's 2013 
requirements projection 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.
    Preeminent in the Navy force structure is the aircraft 
carrier, which represents the embodiment of the United States' 
ability to project power. The Navy has developed a new aircraft 
carrier design and is in the final construction of the lead 
ship for the Ford-class aircraft carriers. Technologies 
introduced with the USS Gerald R. Ford have challenged the Navy 
to maintain cost controls on the lead ship and subsequent 
ships. To address these cost issues, section 121 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) included a provision that amended section 122 of 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by requiring the Secretary of 
the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to certify design 
and engineering changes in excess of $5.0 million. Furthermore, 
section 122 of Public Law 114-92 was also included, which 
amended section 122 of Public Law 109-364 and reduced the cost 
limitation for the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-79 by 
$100.0 million to $11.40 billion.
    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also 
continues its oversight of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 
program. Section 123 of Public Law 114-92 included a provision 
that would restrict funding associated with LCS-25 and LCS-26 
until: (1) the Navy provides certain reports about the LCS 
program; and (2) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes 
certain certifications about the LCS program. Section 123 of S. 
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2017, would require additional reports on LCS Mission Packages 
and a restriction from deviating from revision three of the LCS 
acquisition strategy until the Secretary of Defense provides a 
certification.
    Finally, the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany S. 
1356, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016 (Committee Print No. 2), indicated that ``the lack of 
fiscal support in the fiscal year 2016 FYDP [Future Years 
Defense Program] and previous requests for the early retirement 
of some of these cruisers has led the conferees to question the 
administration's resolve to retain all of these cruisers 
through the end of their service lives.'' To address this 
concern, section 1024 of Public Law 114-92 and section 1024 of 
S. 2943 would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds 
associated with the retirement, inactivation, or storage of 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class amphibious 
ships.

                       UNDERSEA WARFARE PROGRAMS

    The committee conducted rigorous oversight of the Navy's 
undersea warfare domain and placed increased emphasis on a new 
program that will be used to replace the current fleet of 
ballistic missile submarines. This replacement submarine 
program, SSBN(X), is projected to cost over $1.00 billion for 
the design and construction of the 12 submarines and will be 
the second largest Department of Defense acquisition program. 
Considering this program is expected to support 70 percent of 
the nation's strategic deterrence capability, the committee is 
resolved to acquiring the 12 submarines and is supportive of 
authorizing an efficient contract for the construction of the 
SSBN(X) program. Section 1022 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) established a fund called the 
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to manage the allocations of 
monies to support the SSBN(X) program. Section 1022 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 
Law 114-92) expanded the fund and provided additional authority 
to enter into economic order quantities for common components 
with other nuclear powered vessels that the Congressional 
Budget Office has indicated would save several hundred million 
dollars for each submarine. This section also provided special 
transfer authority to the Department of Defense to support this 
program. In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016, the committee required a report from the Comptroller 
General of the United States that would assess the technical 
maturity of the SSBN(X) program before to assure the committee 
that a stable design is obtained before SSBN(X) construction is 
started. Finally, section 1023 of S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would provide an 
authorization for multiyear procurement of critical components 
to support continuous production of the Common Missile 
Compartment.

               MANNED AND UNMANNED INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS

    Manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) system programs have come to constitute a 
significant component of the overall Department of Defense 
force structure. The capability provided by these assets is 
critical to sustaining deterrence and warfighting capability of 
U.S. forces. The committee has continued to focus on the 
budget, cost, schedule, and performance outcomes of major 
manned and unmanned aerial systems programs and examine the ISR 
enterprise for balance in collection and analysis capabilities. 
Also, close scrutiny of Office of the Secretary of Defense ISR 
policy formulation and oversight has been and will continue to 
be of interest to the committee. Long-standing concerns of the 
committee remain: lack of an adequate long-term ISR 
architecture and acquisition strategy; lack of supporting 
analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance 
collection programs data output with adequate resources to 
process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; and 
unnecessary proliferation of manned and unmanned vehicles and 
sensors. The committee 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 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on 
March 26, 2015, on Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force combat 
aviation programs: ``Combat Aviation Modernization Programs and 
the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request.'' Witnesses for this 
hearing included the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Deputy 
Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation; Director of the 
Navy Air Warfare Division; Military Deputy to the Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; and the Air Force 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Requirements. Among other 
issues, this hearing reviewed the Department of Defense budget 
requests for unmanned aerial systems for fiscal year 2016, 
including the requests for the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper 
unmanned aerial systems, and the U-2.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) authorized one additional RQ-4 Global Hawk 
unmanned air system over the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2016, the budget request for the U-2, and added 
$150.0 million for additional MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial 
systems. Public Law 114-92 also included a provision that 
prohibits the Department of the Air Force from retiring any E-
8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System and E-3C 
Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft in fiscal years 
2016 and 2017.
    H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, prohibited the 
availability of funds for retirement of Joint Surveillance 
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft in fiscal year 
2018. H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, also prohibited the 
availability of funds for retirement of U-2 surveillance 
aircraft. H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, also included an 
additional $95.0 million for one additional Navy Triton 
Unmanned Aerial System; an additional $95.1 million for 
critical upgrades to the Army's MQ-1C improved Gray Eagle UAS 
platforms; and an additional $35.0 million for Air Force MQ-9 
Reaper UAS auto take-off and landing capability.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, would prohibit the availability of funds for 
retirement of JSTARS aircraft in fiscal year 2018; and limit 
the availability of fiscal year 2017 and coming year funds for 
the JSTARS recapitalization program unless the contract for 
engineering and manufacturing development uses a firm fixed-
price contract structure or the Secretary of Defense waives the 
limitation in the national security interests of the United 
States. S. 2943 also would require the Air Force to transfer 
the operation of a significant number of remotely piloted 
aircraft to enlisted personnel by September 30, 2020, for the 
Active Duty Component, and by September 30, 2023, as the 
required date for transition by the Air Force Reserve and Air 
National Guard.

                 EMERGING ADVANCED WEAPONS CAPABILITIES

    Department of Defense investment in science and technology 
often leads to the development of new advanced weapons 
capabilities that contribute to the technological superiority 
of U.S. military forces. Maintaining technology overmatch of 
current and potential adversaries is a significant part of the 
qualitative advantage of U.S. forces, but is increasingly 
difficult in an environment of globalized technologies and 
asymmetric combinations of high-tech and low-tech capabilities. 
The committee continued to monitor technological developments 
and support transition of the most promising ones, such as 
directed energy, hypersonics, and autonomy.
    In the 114th Congress, the committee has closely examined 
organizing concepts provided by the military services and the 
Office of Secretary of Defense as demonstration projects become 
viable programs, and the respective services develop 
acquisition plans in support of fielding directed energy 
capabilities. Additionally, the committee has expanded its 
focus to take a similar look at other emerging advanced weapons 
capabilities, such as hypersonics and autonomy, to see how they 
can contribute to new security strategies, and to ensure that 
they are supported by rigorous technical analysis and relevant 
concepts of employment.
    The committee held related hearings and briefings, 
including: a hearing on November 19, 2015, ``Advancing the 
Science and Acceptance of Autonomy for Future Defense 
Systems''; a briefing on December 16, 2015, ``Defense Science 
Board Report on 21st Century Military Operations in a Complex 
Electromagnetic Environment.''
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee included several directive reporting requirements, 
including: an assessment of the directed energy industrial 
base; a review of the combatant commander requirements for 
directed energy weapons; a review by the Comptroller General of 
the measures and actions being taken to mitigate the loss of 
access to current sources of trusted microelectronics; a review 
by the Comptroller General of technology transition activities 
within the Department of Defense; and a review of the 
transition of technologies from the Strategic Capabilities 
Office.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that would require a 
plan for advanced technology war games; a provision that would 
extend authorization for the Rapid Innovation Program; a 
provision that would establish a cooperative research and 
development program with Israel to develop anti-tunneling 
defense capabilities; a provision that would authorize a 
technology offset fund; and a provision that would establish a 
pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology 
programs.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee included several directive reporting requirements, 
including: a briefing on the plan for demonstrating and 
deploying a common railgun mount; a briefing on Air Force 
directed energy initiatives; a briefing on a technology roadmap 
for addressing gaps to counter the potential threats from 
terrorist or state actor uses of small unmanned aerial systems; 
a briefing on a technology roadmap for enabling technology 
needed for operational directed energy weapon systems; and a 
briefing assessing the test range needs and investments to meet 
testing required for fifth and sixth generation aircraft and 
air armament, including hypersonic strike weapons.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes a provision that would require notification 
for the use of certain funds for prototyping and 
experimentation in the Navy; a provision that would require the 
designation of a senior defense official with principal 
responsibility for directed energy weapons, and redesignate an 
office to serve as the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office 
to improve the rapid fielding of directed energy systems; a 
provision that would establish a pilot program for the 
modernization of electromagnetic spectrum warfare systems and 
electronic warfare systems; and a provision that would require 
a report on future electronic warfare concepts and 
technologies.

                           NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

    In the 114th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the atomic energy defense activities of the 
Department of Energy and the nuclear policies and programs of 
the Department of Defense to ensure the safety, security, 
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. 
Particular emphasis has been placed on Department of Energy and 
Department of Defense nuclear modernization plans, including 
but not limited to infrastructure investments, warhead life 
extension programs, stockpile stewardship and management plans, 
delivery system modernization, nuclear command and control, 
cost savings and efficiency initiatives, and security.
    In the first session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 24, 
2015, on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Atomic 
Energy Defense'' and a hearing on April 15, 2015, on the 
``Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces.'' 
Respectively, these hearings examined the nuclear-related 
budget requests for the Department of Energy and the Department 
of Defense.
    On October 7, 2015, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
held a hearing on ``Plutonium Disposition and the MOX 
Project,'' to examine in detail the largest construction 
project taking place within the Department of Energy's Defense 
Nuclear Nonproliferation program. On November 3, 2015, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on ``Future 
Options for the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent--Views from Project 
Atom.'' This hearing featured nongovernmental expert witnesses 
and focused on discussion of long-term plans and programs for 
the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
    On June 25, 2015, the full committee held a hearing on 
``Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century,'' with witnesses that 
included the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary 
of Energy, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
This hearing was the culmination of a focused ``Nuclear 
Oversight Week'' conducted by the full committee, which also 
included a hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on June 25, 2015, consisting of an ``Update on 
Findings and Recommendations of the 2014 Department of Defense 
Nuclear Enterprise Review.'' The committee's Nuclear Oversight 
Week also included a classified briefing for the full committee 
on June 24, 2015, on foreign nuclear weapon programs and 
capabilities and a classified briefing for the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces on June 16, 2015, on the health and vitality 
of the nuclear weapon stockpile, systems, and enterprise.
    In addition, during the first session of the 114th 
Congress, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted other 
classified briefings, including: (1) on January 27, 2015, a 
briefing on the Russian Federation's nuclear doctrine and 
capabilities; (2) on October 22, 2015, a joint briefing with 
the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on security of 
U.S. nuclear forces and implementation of recommendations of 
the Nuclear Enterprise Review; and (3) on November 17, 2015, a 
briefing on the status of the nuclear command, control, and 
communications system.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92), included several legislative provisions 
related to nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security 
enterprise. This includes provisions to improve accountability 
and transparency of nuclear-related programs, enable cost 
savings within certain procurement programs, improve the 
responsiveness of nuclear weapons programs within the 
Department of Energy, track the implementation of reforms to 
governance and management of the nuclear security enterprise, 
and place limits or provide policy direction to certain 
programs.
    In the second session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on January 12, 
2016, on the ``National Academies Study on Peer Review and 
Design Competition in the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's National Security Laboratories'' to review the 
results of this congressionally mandated study. The 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held hearings on February 
11, 2106, on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for Atomic 
Energy Defense,'' and on March 2, 2016, on the ``Fiscal Year 
2017 Budget Request for Department of Defense Nuclear Forces.'' 
Respectively, these hearings examined the nuclear-related 
budget requests for the Department of Energy and the Department 
of Defense.
    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held a hearing on 
July 14, 2016, on ``President Obama's Nuclear Deterrent 
Modernization Plans and Budgets'' to review and conduct 
oversight of President Obama's nuclear weapons modernization 
plans, budgets, and schedules--and the military requirements 
driving them. And on September 7, 2016, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held a hearing on ``Deferred Maintenance in 
the Nuclear Security Enterprise: Safety and Mission Risks''' to 
review and assess the state of, and recapitalization plans for, 
infrastructure and facilities within the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's nuclear security enterprise.
    In addition, during the second session of the 114th 
Congress, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted other 
classified briefings, including: (1) on February 2, 2016, a 
briefing on proliferation threats from 3-D printing; and (2) on 
March 22, 2016, a briefing on fiscal year 2017 budget request 
for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions related to 
nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security enterprise. This 
includes provisions that would improve processes and adopt best 
practices within nuclear-related programs; place limits or 
provide policy direction to certain programs; and authorize the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to take 
certain actions to protect facilities and assets from threats 
posed by unmanned aircraft.

                            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 will be placed on U.S. 
homeland missile defense capabilities (including the Missile 
Defense Agency's proposal and strategy for acquiring a 
Redesigned Kill Vehicle), European Phased Adaptive Approach 
implementation, continued implementation of other regional 
Phased Adaptive Approaches, 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. In the 
114th Congress, 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 enhance stability of the 
industrial base.
    The committee will continue to monitor foreign ballistic 
missile threats and identify opportunities to strengthen 
international missile defense cooperation with allies and 
partners such as the State of Israel, Japan, the Commonwealth 
of Australia, the Republic of Korea, 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 will also be 
reviewed. The committee will also provide 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, global security and 
strategic stability.
    The committee also intends to pay particular attention to 
the Army's Patriot air and missile defense program. The Army's 
plans call for significant investment over a long term and the 
committee will ensure these plans are cost-effective, based on 
proven technology, support continued Foreign Military Sales, 
and provide maximum deployable capability to combatant 
commanders and the warfighter.
    During the first session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing regarding the 
``Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Missile Defense Programs.'' The Director of the 
Missile Defense Agency, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, and 
other subject matter experts all testified.
    In addition the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces met for 
classified briefings on missile defense programs and adversary 
threats. On March 3, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive a 
classified briefing on next-generation missile defense 
technology and capability, and on June 2, 2015, the 
subcommittee met for a classified briefing regarding missile 
defense programs.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92), included several legislative provisions 
supporting the Ground-based Midcourse Defense and Redesigned 
Kill Vehicle programs, missile defense cooperation with Israel, 
and the Aegis Ashore program. Additional provisions established 
prohibitions on the integration of missile defense systems with 
systems made by either the Russian Federation or the People's 
Republic of China.
    During the second session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing regarding ``The 
Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States--the 
FY17 President's Budget Request.'' The Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, and several 
other experts testified in support of the President's fiscal 
year 2017 budget request.
    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held two 
classified briefings on missile defense threats and 
capabilities. On March 16, 2016, the subcommittee met to 
receive a classified briefing on cruise missile defense--red 
vs. blue missile threat, and on June 9, 2016, the subcommittee 
met to receive a classified briefing on Joint Capability Mix 
study IV--missile defense employment scenarios.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, contains numerous legislative provisions to include 
an amendment to the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 
(Public Law 106-38), a mandate to the Missile Defense Agency to 
create a program of record for defending against hypersonic 
boost glide vehicles, direction to the Secretary of Defense for 
developing a left-of-launch declaratory policy, and additional 
prohibitions to the sharing of missile defense information and 
systems.

                        NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE

    In the 114th Congress, the committee continued to oversee 
the national security space programs of the Department of 
Defense, including the combat support agencies and elements of 
the Department of Defense that are part of the Intelligence 
Community. The committee placed particular attention on assured 
access to space; space acquisition strategies; mitigating risks 
that could create gaps in space capabilities for key warfighter 
needs; providing affordability and increasing government buying 
power; and appropriately leveraging commercial satellite 
services.
    The committee also continued to monitor foreign space 
threats and assessed the Department's space security and 
defense program concerning space situational awareness, space 
protection, space control, and operationally responsive space 
activities. The committee provided oversight of the 
administration's space policy, posture, and any related 
international agreements. Renewed attention was also placed on 
efforts to improve governance and management across the 
national security space enterprise.
    In the first session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 17, 
2015, on ``Assuring Assured Access to Space.'' The hearing 
consisted of two panels with witnesses from government and 
industry. The hearing focused on the current state and strategy 
for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, including 
challenges, opportunities, and perspectives related to our 
national security space launch activities.
    On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 National Security 
Space Activities.'' Senior government leaders served as 
witnesses for the hearing which focused on the fiscal year 2016 
budget request for the Department of Defense in the context of 
the posture of national security space. The subcommittee also 
met in a closed session, following the open hearing, to receive 
further classified details regarding national security space 
investments and strategies.
    On June 26, 2015, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held 
a hearing on ``Assuring National Security Space: Investing in 
American Industry to End Reliance on Russian Rocket Engines.'' 
Witnesses from government and industry testified on the 
necessary investments in the U.S. industrial base and the 
planned acquisition strategy to develop a U.S. rocket 
propulsion system to end reliance on Russia. The hearing 
highlighted the risks, opportunities, and perspectives 
regarding the investments to meet national security space 
launch requirements.
    In addition to these hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces received a classified briefing on June 10, 
2015, on the foreign counterspace threats and the Department of 
Defense's posture and plans to respond to such threats.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included several legislative provisions 
related to national security space. Public Law 114-92 included 
multiple provisions regarding space launch, organization of 
management of space within the Department of Defense, improved 
acquisition of space capabilities, and placed limits or 
provided policy direction to certain programs to ensure 
warfighter requirements are being met.
    During the second session of the 114th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 15, 
2016, on ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for National 
Security Space.'' Senior military and civilian leaders served 
as witnesses to testify on the fiscal year 2017 budget request 
for the Department of Defense in the context of national 
security space. The subcommittee also met in a closed session, 
following the open hearing, to receive further classified 
details regarding national security space investments and 
strategies.
    On September 27, 2016, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
held a hearing on ``National Security Space: 21st Century 
Challenges, 20th Century Organization.'' A former commander of 
U.S. Strategic Command, a former Director of the National 
Reconnaissance Office, and a former Deputy Secretary of Defense 
testified on challenges within the U.S. space enterprise 
related to organization, management, and command authorities.
    In addition to these hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces received a classified briefing on June 14 on 
space security war games, plans, and investments. On December 
7, 2016, the subcommittee received a briefing on national 
security space acquisitions.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions dealing with 
national security space. S. 2943 includes provisions covering 
space launch, satellite communications, the Global Positioning 
System, space battle management command and control, the 
Department's organization and management of space, and would 
place limits or provided policy direction to certain programs 
to ensure warfighter requirements are being met.

                   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 need to 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 future challenges. 
S&T; investments can also be leveraged to support broader 
acquisition improvements or defense industrial base sustainment 
activities by creatively utilizing competitive or operational 
prototyping, technical transition or integration, or 
requirements maturation.
    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. Emphasis should be placed not 
only on support to acquisition roadmaps, but also on 
capabilities to institutionalize adaptability. Doing that will 
require better integration of intelligence into the S&T; cycle, 
as well as better cognizance of global developments and 
industry-based independent research and development. It will 
also require a solid foundation to allow for adaptability, 
which means having world-class people and facilities in which 
to conduct certain types of research and development.
    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 has also continued to examine how S&T; investments are 
integrated into strategic and operational plans to ensure that 
the investments being made, including in people and 
infrastructure, are properly aligned.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities conducted several hearings within this area, 
including: a hearing on March 26, 2015, ``Department of Defense 
(DOD) Fiscal Year 2016 Science and Technology Programs: Laying 
the Groundwork to Maintain Technological Superiority''; a 
hearing on November 19, 2015, ``Advancing the Science and 
Acceptance of Autonomy for Future Defense Systems''; a briefing 
on December 16, 2015, ``Defense Science Board Report on 21st 
Century Military Operations in a Complex Electromagnetic 
Environment''; a hearing on February 24, 2016, ``Department of 
Defense Fiscal Year 2017 Science and Technology Programs to 
Discuss Defense Innovation to Create the Future Military 
Force''; a hearing on September 28, 2016, ``Department of 
Defense Laboratories and Their Innovation Through Science and 
Engineering in Support of Military Operations''; a classified 
briefing on June 14, 2016, ``The Role of Electromagnetic 
Spectrum in Future Military Operations''; and a briefing on 
December 8, 2016, ``Defense Science Board Summer Study on 
Autonomy.''
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee included several directive reporting requirements, 
including: an assessment of the directed energy industrial 
base; a review of the combatant commander requirements for 
directed energy weapons; a review by the Comptroller General of 
the United States of the measures and actions being taken to 
mitigate the loss of access to current sources of trusted 
microelectronics; a review by the Comptroller General of 
technology transition activities within the Department of 
Defense; and a review of the transition of technologies from 
the Strategic Capabilities Office.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that would require a 
plan for advanced technology war games; a provision that would 
extend the use of educational partnership agreements to support 
technology transition; a provision that would require the 
services and agencies to develop engagement strategies with 
historically black colleges and universities; a provision that 
would establish Centers for Science, Technology and Engineering 
Partnership; a provision that would authorize a technology 
offset fund; a provision that would extend the authorization 
for the Global Research Watch Program; a provision that would 
establish science and technology activities to support business 
system information technology acquisition programs; a provision 
that would expand eligibility for financial assistance under 
the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation 
program; a provision that would establish a pilot program for 
streamlining awards for innovative technology programs; a 
provision that would codify other transactions authority; a 
provision that would establish a cooperative research and 
development program with Israel to develop anti-tunneling 
defense capabilities; a provision that would modify the direct 
hiring authority for certain defense laboratories; a provision 
that would establish a pilot program for shaping the workforce 
at defense laboratories; and a provision that would extend 
authorization for the Rapid Innovation Program.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee included several directive reporting requirements, 
including: a briefing on improving data collection efforts in 
order to provide complete and analyzable records for grant 
awards; a briefing on recent advances in desalination 
technologies; a briefing on low energy nuclear reactions; and a 
briefing on the potential military applications of 
nanomaterials for combat systems.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes a provision that would create a Laboratory 
Quality Enhancement Program; a provision that would modify the 
section 219 authority available to the defense laboratories; a 
provision that would limit the funds available to the Defense 
Innovation Unit Experimental until certain information is 
provided; a provision that would establish a pilot program to 
allow management flexibility at the defense laboratories, test 
and evaluation centers, and the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency; a provision that would codify the section 1101 
personnel authority in title 10; a provision that would make 
permanent the rapid innovation program; a provision that would 
allow the National Defense University and Defense Acquisition 
University the ability to enter into cooperative research and 
development agreements; a provision that would create a 
manufacturing engineering education grant program; a provision 
that would increase the micro-purchase threshold for basic 
research efforts; a provision that would create a pilot program 
to enhance cooperation between the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency and the military service academies; a provision 
that would extend and modify the Defense Acquisition Challenge 
Program; a provision that would extend the Small Business 
Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer 
programs until 2022; a provision that would make permanent and 
modify hiring authorities for defense laboratory personnel; and 
a provision that would create a pilot program to offer flexible 
pay authority for certain technical positions in the defense 
laboratories.

                     CYBER OPERATIONS CAPABILITIES

    Cyber operations have taken on an increasingly important 
role in military operations, as well as overall in national 
security. Accordingly, the committee continued to closely 
scrutinize the Department of Defense's cyber operations, 
organization, manning, and funding to ensure that the military 
has the freedom of maneuver to conduct the range of missions in 
the Nation's defense, and when called upon, to support other 
interagency and international partners. An important oversight 
role for Congress regarding the conduct of defensive and 
offensive cyber operations has been to ensure that the proper 
legal and policy frameworks are in place and followed. The 
committee has also continued to scrutinize military cyber 
operations to ensure that they are properly integrated into the 
combatant commander's operational plans, and to ensure 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 the Nation's decision 
makers. In the course of monitoring the cybersecurity posture 
of the military, the committee has continued to examine the 
effects of globalization on the assured integrity of 
microelectronics and software.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities conducted several hearings and briefings within 
this area, including: a briefing on February 12, 2015, ``Cyber 
Operations Quarterly Update''; a hearing on March 4, 2015, 
``Cyber Operations: Improving the Military Cyber Security 
Posture in an Uncertain Threat Environment''; a hearing on 
September 29, 2015, ``Outside Perspectives on the Department of 
Defense Cyber Strategy''; a hearing on September 30, 2015, 
``Implementing the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy''; a 
briefing on September 30, 2015, ``Cyber Operations Quarterly 
Update''; a hearing on November 17, 2015, ``Update on Office of 
Personnel Management Network Intrusion and Disclosure of 
Sensitive Personnel Data''; a briefing on January 12, 2016, 
``Cyber Operations Quarterly Update''; a hearing on March 16, 
2016, ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command 
for Preparing for Operations in the Cyber Domain.''
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee included several directive reporting requirements, 
including: a review by the Comptroller General of the United 
States assessing the Department of Defense's plans and actions 
for providing support to civil authorities in the event of a 
domestic cyber event; a briefing by the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics detailing 
the process for identifying and assessing cyber vulnerabilities 
on legacy weapons and mission systems; a briefing by the 
Secretary of Defense assessing and validating the multi-source 
cyber intelligence collection and analysis needs of the 
Department of Defense; and an assessment of potential cyber 
vulnerabilities to smart buildings and access control systems.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that would require the 
codification of reporting on cyber incidents or penetrations of 
networks and information systems of certain contractors in 
title 10, United States Code, as well as the addition of 
liability protections related to such reporting; a provision 
that would reestablish the Commission to Assess the Threat to 
the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks; a 
provision that would streamline the reporting requirements for 
the Joint Federated Assurance Center; a provision that would 
establish acquisition authority for the Commander of United 
States Cyber Command; a provision that would establish new 
cyber workforce hiring authorities for United States Cyber 
Command; a provision that would provide authorization for 
preparing forces for military cyber operations; a provision 
that would designate Department of Defense entities to be 
responsible for acquisition of critical cyber capabilities; a 
provision that would establish a fund for conducting cyber 
vulnerability assessments of major weapon systems; and a 
provision that would require an assessment of capabilities of 
United States Cyber Command to defend the United States from 
cyber attacks by foreign powers.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee included several directive reporting requirements, 
including: a briefing on the impact of the Wassernaar Agreement 
to Department of Defense applications; an assessment and report 
by the Comptroller General on the Department of Defense's 
planning and management for the security impact and challenges 
that the Internet of Things will present to the Department; a 
briefing assessing the capabilities and needs for 
electromagnetic pulse hardening Department of Defense 
microgrids; a report by the Comptroller General assessing the 
Department's management and measurement of progress in 
protecting its own networks, systems, and information; a 
briefing on how to implement a pilot to cyber harden existing 
programs through sustainment activities in fiscal year 2018; a 
briefing on the training equivalency process for the 
Department; a briefing assessing the policies and processes for 
coordinating information assurance policies on test and 
evaluation facilities when conducting joint or multiservice 
test and evaluation activities; and a briefing reviewing and 
assessing the dual-hat relationship for Cyber Command.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes a provision that would elevate Cyber 
Command to a full unified command; a provision that would 
expand existing special procurement authority to include uses 
for defense against or recovery from a cyber attack; a 
provision that would require combatant commands to enter into 
agreements relating to the use of cyber opposition forces; a 
provision requiring a strategy for incorporating Army National 
Guard forces into cyber protection teams; a provision that 
would provide additional training for human resources 
professionals at Cyber Command; a provision that would 
establish an advisory committee on industrial security and 
industrial base policy; a provision that would limit the 
termination of the dual-hat relationship between the National 
Security Agency and Cyber Command; a provision that would allow 
the Department to provide cyber support to personnel vulnerable 
to cyber attacks; a provision that would expedite evaluation of 
the cyber vulnerabilities to the F-35 aircraft and support 
systems; a provision that would require evaluation of the cyber 
vulnerabilities of defense critical infrastructure; a provision 
that would require a report on cyber deterrence capabilities; 
and a provision requiring a plan for information security 
continuous monitoring capabilities and comply-to-connect 
policy.

                         INFORMATION OPERATIONS

    Engagement with foreign audiences and nuanced understanding 
of the information environment is pivotal in navigating the 
21st century security environment. Whether one is trying to 
influence nation-state actors or potential allies, counter 
violent extremist groups, or identify and counter efforts at 
deception or misinformation, strategic communication and 
information operations are key elements to success on the 
battlefield. These elements are an important tool to prevent or 
deter conflict before escalation. The ability to carry out such 
operations against nation-states, as well as individuals and 
small terrorist groups, requires a flexible and adaptable 
strategy, as well as comprehensive understanding of specific 
groups, their motivating ideologies, and the tools to translate 
that understanding into action.
    With the resurgence of violent extremist groups like Al 
Shabaab, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the 
Levant, the need for the Department of Defense to plan and 
execute effective information operations is continuing to grow. 
Recent examples illustrate how these groups are utilizing 
social media to support the radicalization process, as well as 
planning, financing, and command and control for terrorist 
acts. The committee has paid particular attention to the 
Department of Defense's information operations and strategic 
communication strategies, and how these tools will be further 
developed and adapted to support warfighter needs in a changing 
security environment, while maintaining appropriate controls 
for privacy and civil liberties. These activities enable 
military operations and military support to diplomacy, and the 
committee has continued to conduct oversight of these critical 
capabilities, with focus on how these tools are integrated into 
theater security cooperation plans and leveraged with related 
tools for cyber and security force assistance.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities conducted several hearings and briefings within 
this area, including: a briefing on September 18, 2015, 
``Improving Department of Defense Operations in the Information 
Environment: A Roundtable Discussion on Technology and 
Concepts''; a hearing on October 22, 2015, ``Countering 
Adversarial Propaganda: Charting an Effective Course in the 
Contested Information Environment''; and a briefing on December 
2, 2015, ``Information Operations Update.''
    H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016, as passed by the House, included a provision 
that allows the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot 
program to assess information-related and strategic 
communications capabilities to support the tactical, 
operational, and strategic requirements of the various 
combatant commanders, including urgent and emergent operational 
needs, and the operational and theater security cooperation 
plans of the geographic and functional combatant commanders.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that requires the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out a series of technology 
demonstrations, subject to the availability of funds for such 
purpose or to a prior approval reprogramming, related to 
information operations and information engagement to support 
the geographic and functional combatant commanders, with 
associated notification requirements.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the 
committee included directive reporting requirements that would 
require: a briefing on the Department's long-term strategy to 
counter adversarial messaging and recruiting utilizing digital 
technologies, including social media; a briefing assessing the 
current policy directives on how defense entities use such 
social media tools; and a strategy for regionally building 
partnership capacity that addresses the monitoring, data 
collection of narratives, and development of networks for 
countering narratives to support the missions of the combatant 
commands.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes a provision that would codify and expand 
the functions of the Global Engagement Center.

    COMPROMISES OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND INSIDER THREATS

    The committee received regular updates from the Department 
of Defense on unauthorized disclosures of classified 
information throughout the 114th Congress. The committee 
remains concerned about several recent high-profile cases of 
unauthorized classified information disclosures and other 
mishandling of classified information by cleared personnel, and 
the impact of these incidents on national security. In response 
to these continuing issues, the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 
National Defense Authorization Acts directed several 
enhancements to security policies and practices, improved audit 
capabilities, and information-sharing initiatives.

 USE OF FORCE IN COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES 
                    AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES

    The committee continued to conduct extensive oversight, 
often in classified form, over the use of force in 
counterterrorism operations and sensitive activities outside of 
the United States and areas of active hostilities. While the 
use of force in this area has been overseen in all aspects, the 
committee paid particular attention to special operations 
forces and activities, and the interagency coordination that 
occurs with the U.S. Intelligence Community. In conducting this 
oversight, the committee also reviewed and considered 
Presidential policy guidance documents and similar executive 
branch directives. The committee ensured that counterterrorism 
operations and sensitive activities conducted outside of the 
United States and areas of active hostilities are in line with 
broader national security objectives, strategies, and 
resources. The committee additionally conducted issue-driven 
oversight in this area via secure communications and briefings 
with senior Department of Defense and Intelligence Community 
officials. Throughout the 114th Congress, committee Members and 
staff traveled extensively overseas to review programs and 
activities outside of the United States and within areas of 
active hostilities.

                 COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

    Countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is a key 
mission for the Department of Defense. The proliferation and 
potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological agents pose 
a unique and enduring threat to U.S. national security. To 
respond to this threat, the Department is engaged in activities 
to understand the environment, threats, and vulnerabilities; 
control, defeat, disable, and dispose of WMD threats; and 
safeguard the force and manage WMD consequences. The committee 
and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
continued reviewing the Department's countering WMD plans and 
programs to ensure the WMD threat is appropriately addressed 
and is properly resourced despite decreasing budgets and 
competing priorities.
    The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities held several hearings and briefings on countering 
WMD, including: a hearing on March 25, 2015, ``Countering WMD 
Strategy and FY16 Budget Request: Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency and Chemical and Biological Defense''; a briefing on 
June 10, 2015, ``An Update on the Inadvertent Transfer of Live 
Anthrax Samples by the Department of Defense''; a briefing on 
November 4, 2015, ``An Update and Threat Forecast on the 
Development and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by 
State and Non-State Actors''; a hearing on February 3, 2016, 
``Outside Views on Biodefense for the Department of Defense''; 
a hearing on February 10, 2016, ``Department of Defense 
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy and Programs for 
Fiscal Year 2017.''
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 
committee included several directives related to countering 
weapons of mass destruction, including: a briefing on the 
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction situational awareness 
prototype Constellation; a briefing on the Department of 
Defense's biological research and developmental work, to 
include partnerships with non-profit research facilities 
regarding potential renewed viral threats of especially 
dangerous pathogens; a Comptroller General of the United States 
review of the preparedness of the Homeland Response Forces to 
accomplish their mission; and a Comptroller General review of 
the Department of Defense's planning to support civil 
authorities in the event of a pandemic disease outbreak.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92), included several legislative provisions 
related to countering weapons of mass destruction. These 
include: a limitation of funds for the advanced development and 
manufacturing facility under the medical countermeasure 
program; an extension of the authority to conduct activities to 
enhance the capability of foreign countries to respond to 
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction from section 
1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2014 (Public Law 113-66); and a modification to section 
1412(b)(3) of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 
(Public Law 99-145) that extends the stockpile elimination 
deadline of lethal chemical agents and munitions; and 
recommendations on the inadvertent transfer of anthrax from the 
Department of Defense.
    S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions related to 
countering weapons of mass destruction. These include: 
requirements for improved biosafety handling and incident 
reporting of select agents and toxins to hold the Department of 
Defense accountable for some of the findings from the 
inadvertent transfer of anthrax; and direction for the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary 
of Agriculture to jointly develop and submit a national 
biodefense strategy and implementation plan.

         ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE


                 Full Committee Hearings and Briefings

    During the 114th Congress, the committee held a series of 
budget and posture hearings and briefings in preparation for 
the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 budgets. These 
hearings and briefings, 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.
    To inform its consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget 
request, the committee convened a hearing on February 3, 2015, 
with defense intelligence leaders to receive testimony on 
worldwide threats. On March 17, 2015, the committee convened a 
hearing to receive testimony from the Secretaries of the 
military departments and the military service chiefs, and on 
March 18, 2015, the committee received testimony from the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff on the Department of Defense fiscal year 2016 budget 
request. The committee also sought the perspective of the 
commanders of the unified combatant commands and the commander 
of Operation Resolute Support through several briefings and 
hearings in 2015. Additionally, the committee convened a 
hearing to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their 
national defense priorities for the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which took place on 
April 14, 2015.
    To inform its consideration of the fiscal year 2017 budget 
request, the committee convened a hearing on March 2, 2016, 
with defense intelligence leaders to receive testimony on 
worldwide threats. On March 16, 2016, the committee convened a 
hearing to received testimony from the Secretaries of the 
military departments and the military service chiefs, and on 
March 22, 2016, the committee received testimony from the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff on the Department of Defense fiscal year 2017 budget 
request. The committee also sought the perspective of the 
commanders of the unified combatant commands and the commanders 
of Operation Resolute Support and Operation Inherent Resolve 
through briefings and hearings in 2016. Additionally, the 
committee convened a hearing to receive testimony from Members 
of Congress on their national defense priorities for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which 
took place on March 1, 2016.
    In keeping with the committee's emphasis on defense reform, 
the committee convened a series of hearings and briefings 
throughout the 114th Congress to examine: challenges to the 
technological superiority of the United States, acquisition 
agility, foreign material sales processes, security 
cooperation, improvements to the Goldwater-Nichols Department 
of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433), and 
compensation and healthcare for service members and their 
dependents.
    Additionally, as events transpired in the Middle East, 
specifically relating to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq 
and the Levant (ISIL) and subsequent U.S. military operations 
in the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, the 
committee met several times over the course of the 114th 
Congress to conduct oversight hearings and briefings on the 
threat and the Administration's policy and strategy to defeat 
ISIL. These included classified briefings on the security 
situation and military operations in Iraq and Syria with senior 
defense and Intelligence Community officials; hearings on the 
strategy and campaign against ISIL with defense officials, 
military commanders, and outside experts; and a hearing with 
outside experts on the President's proposed authorization for 
the use of military force against ISIL. Additionally, the 
committee held a series of hearings and briefings on the United 
States' ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, ongoing 
global counterterrorism operations, as well as a series of 
events on Islamic extremism trends and implications for U.S. 
policy.
    The committee also held frequent classified briefings to 
receive intelligence and operational updates on threat 
developments across the globe. These briefings informed the 
committee's oversight hearings and briefings on the 
Department's strategic reassurance and deterrence activities in 
Europe and the Asia-Pacific, and on the Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action with the Islamic Republic of Iran. They also 
informed the committee's legislative initiatives in readiness, 
capabilities, and infrastructure to ensure that the U.S. Armed 
Forces remain capable of addressing current and emerging 
conventional and unconventional threats.
    The committee also sought to emphasize and complement the 
oversight work of the subcommittees and, throughout the 114th 
Congress, conducted oversight series focused on the readiness 
challenges of the military services, nuclear deterrence and the 
state of the U.S. nuclear enterprise, and the Department's 
cyber strategy and cyber operations. The committee also held 
classified events with the Intelligence Community to examine 
how the intelligence enterprise supports defense acquisition, 
conducts defense human intelligence, and is addressing 
shortfalls in intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance 
capabilities.
    Lastly, the committee conducted a hearing on the audit 
readiness of the Department of Defense, which remains an area 
of high risk as identified by the Comptroller General of the 
United States, and convened four briefings with Department of 
Defense, Department of State, and Intelligence Community 
officials on transfers of detainees from the detention facility 
at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

                            Budget Oversight

    On February 27, 2015, 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 2016 to the Committee on the Budget. The 
President's fiscal year 2016 budget requested $561.0 billion in 
discretionary budget authority for national defense. Of this 
total, $534.3 billion was for the Department of Defense, $19.1 
billion for the Department of Energy's defense activities, and 
$7.6 billion for other defense-related activities. The 
President's budget request also included $9.0 billion in 
mandatory budget authority. The budget submission did not 
comply with the limitations mandated by the Budget Control Act 
of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) for funding levels in fiscal year 
2016 and across all budgeted fiscal years. In addition to the 
base budget request, as required by section 1008 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2016 included a separate request of $50.9 billion, 
presented as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for war-
related expenditures in support of ongoing military operations 
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, military operations 
against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), 
forward presence in other critical areas, and the resetting of 
equipment.
    The House anticipated in 2014 that requirements for fiscal 
year 2016 would exceed those for fiscal year 2015. In fact, the 
House-passed budget resolution increased national defense 
spending to $566.0 billion in fiscal year 2016, and returned 
funding to pre-sequestration levels in fiscal year 2017 and 
out. The House-passed fiscal year 2015 budget resolution 
provided $5.0 billion more for fiscal year 2016 than the 
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request.
    The committee discussed that, over the last 3 years, the 
level of funding requested for defense has seen significant 
decline. In fiscal year 2013, defense spending would decrease 
by 17 percent under sequestration when compared with the level 
projected for fiscal year 2013 in the Future Years Defense 
Program (FYDP) that was submitted in February 2010. Even prior 
to sequestration, defense spending had already been reduced by 
9 percent from the plan submitted just 2 years earlier.
    The committee noted that over the prior 5 years, the level 
of funding requested and appropriated for national defense had 
declined. Under sequestration, national defense spending would 
decrease over 21 percent in fiscal year 2016, when compared 
with the level projected for fiscal year 2016 in the outyear 
budget documentation included in the first budget request 
prepared by the Administration, submitted in February 2010. The 
committee continued to be concerned that resources were 
insufficient to fulfill the current defense strategy. The 
committee noted that although the civilian and military 
leadership of the Department of Defense attempted to defend 
each successively lower budget request, their previous 
testimony directly contradicted the assertion that the fiscal 
year 2016 budget request would allow the military to fulfill 
the defense strategy at low to moderate risk.
    The committee agreed in 2015, with the views of General 
Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the 
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request was at ``the lower 
ragged edge'' of the Department's ability to execute the 
National Security Strategy, with moderate risk. At these 
funding levels, the degradation of hardware requirements was 
stemmed, but the replenishment of years of readiness shortfalls 
could not be immediately recovered. As submitted, the 
Department admitted that it would not be able to fully fight 
and meet the demands of the National Military Strategy until 
2023. The threat of sequestration-level funding would continue 
to impact national defense. The committee urged the continued 
support of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to 
ensure adequate funding for national defense in fiscal year 
2016 and beyond, preferably at pre-sequestration levels, but at 
a minimum level of what was previously voted upon in the fiscal 
year 2015 House-passed budget resolution.
    The committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in 
his views and estimates. Instead, the ranking member was joined 
by 24 other Members of the committee in submitting alternative 
views and estimates that the fiscal year 2016 budget request 
offered the Congress a solid basis for cost-effective planning 
and decision-making and supported current and future military 
requirements. The alternative views discussed that the Congress 
must eliminate sequestration to: dispel uncertainty, empower 
economic recovery, and grant the legislative and executive 
branches of government the flexibility needed to identify and 
implement savings within the budget in a responsible and 
deliberate manner. The Congress must then pass 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 noted that deficit-reduction 
goals cannot be effectuated through cuts alone, and that 
increased revenues and changes in mandatory spending must be 
considered. The Congress must, therefore, establish a 
manageable, long-term, discretionary spending plan that 
advances national interests on a broad front.
    On February 5, 2016, the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services forwarded his views on the resources required for 
national defense, as the budget request had not yet been 
received by Congress, and a review of committee's legislative 
activities for the year. The committee noted that an adequate 
national defense required significant additional funding. The 
committee also recognized that the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015 (Public Law 114-74) set a level of base funding for fiscal 
year 2017, as well as a minimum estimate of OCO funding to meet 
additional base requirements and to fund current operations. 
These views further stated that, at an absolute minimum, the 
agreement that Congress and the President reached must be 
enforced and fully funded at the agreed levels.
    The committee discussed that Public Law 114-74 provided for 
a base funding level in fiscal year 2017 of $551.0 billion for 
defense. In addition, the agreement provided for a minimum of 
$59.0 billion in adjustments to the defense cap for OCO, for a 
total of $610.0 billion for national defense. Since it was 
understood during the budget negotiations that $551.0 billion 
for base funding was insufficient to meet the military's base 
requirements, the agreement further designated funding within 
OCO to cover base budget requirements. The level of funding for 
base requirements was specific for fiscal year 2016, but 
undefined in fiscal year 2017. However, the fiscal year 2016 
budget request and fiscal year 2016 House budget resolution 
both identified the level of funding necessary to support 
fiscal year 2017 base requirements as approximately $574.0 
billion. Therefore, the consensus was that the fiscal year 2017 
base requirements would be supported through a combination of 
base funding and OCO funding. To cover that minimum level of 
funding, $23.0 billion of the OCO adjustment would support base 
requirements, and an additional amount of OCO would fund 
current operations, the precise amount of which would depend on 
the world security situation and U.S. deployments. Any 
additional unidentified emergent requirements, which are 
appropriately funded through OCO, should have been added to the 
President's budget submission. As indicated in the section by 
section analysis of the legislation, the section referring to 
OCO funds ``establishes minimum adjustments to the defense . . 
. caps for overseas contingency operations.''
    The committee noted that while the budget request had not 
yet been received, there was concern about how the 
Administration was interpreting the budget agreement. It was 
concerned that the Office of Management and Budget would 
determine that a combined total of $610.0 billion for base and 
OCO in Public Law 114-74 was an upper limit for defense 
spending. Therefore, the total request for funds would equal an 
estimated $610.0 billion for all national defense requirements, 
and that new additional OCO requirements would cannibalize 
funding for base requirements. As the Comptroller of the 
Department of Defense had publicly stated, that in light of 
emerging OCO requirements, there would be ``a $15 billion or so 
cut'' in fiscal year 2017 that would result in ``slow-downs in 
some modernization programs.'' This was a direct contradiction 
to the agreement between the House of Representatives and 
Senate that the OCO levels for defense in fiscal year 2017 were 
the floor, not the ceiling.
    The committee recommended House Republicans insist upon at 
least an additional $15.0 to $23.0 billion, depending on how 
much of the designated funding in OCO for base requirements was 
consumed to address valid emergent threats, to cover the 
national defense base requirements in the upcoming budget 
resolution and to enforce the executive branch's agreement in 
the BBA. The committee also recommended a further discussion of 
additional resources for emergent issues based on the 
President's underestimation of security risks to the United 
States and mismanagement of core national security priorities, 
including the military's posture in Afghanistan; its escalating 
efforts to counter ISIL; and its efforts to deter Russian 
Federation aggression.

          ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES


           Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

    In coordination with the committee, the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted additional 
oversight of specific issues related to the global war on 
terrorism, to include; special operations capabilities, 
counter-terrorism, and counter-proliferation programs and 
activities; homeland defense and consequence management 
programs; intelligence policy, national intelligence programs, 
and Department of Defense elements of the intelligence 
community. Further details on these subcommittee activities are 
provided elsewhere in this report.
    In order to conduct oversight, subcommittee members and 
staff made numerous trips to countries impacted by terrorism 
and emerging threats, to include areas where U.S. forces are 
engaged in combat operations, 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. Countries visited 
include: United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Turkey, the 
State of Kuwait, the Islamic Republic of Iraq, the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the 
Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Djibouti, the Republic of 
Niger, the Kingdom of Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic 
of Algeria, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic 
of Korea.
    The subcommittee considered and reported several 
legislative provisions in H.R. 1735, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as passed by the House, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Public Law 114-92), H.R. 4909, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, 
and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017. 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; and defense intelligence 
policy. These specifically included: an execute agent for the 
oversight and management of alternative compensatory control 
measures; congressional notification and briefing requirements 
on ordered evacuations of U.S. embassies and consulates 
involving the use of United States Armed Forces; and provisions 
previously addressed elsewhere in this report.
    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
included several legislative provisions related to the global 
war on terrorism in H.R. 1735, as passed by the House, and 
Public Law 114-92 including: a section that would make 
permanent the authority for the Secretary of Defense to offer 
and make rewards to a person providing information or nonlethal 
assistance to U.S. Government personnel or government personnel 
of allied forces participating in a combined operation with 
U.S. Armed Forces conducted outside the United States against 
international terrorism or providing such information or 
assistance that is beneficial to force protection associated 
with such an operation; a section that would increase from $75 
million to $85 million the authority for support of special 
operations to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the 
Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375); and a section that would extend 
by 1 year, the authority for non-conventional assisted recovery 
capabilities for conventional and special operations forces 
pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81); and an extension of authority to conduct 
family support programs for immediate family members of members 
of the Armed Forces assigned to U.S. Special Operations Forces.
    Additionally, the subcommittee assisted the committee with 
several provisions in Public Law 114-92, and S. 2943 related to 
weapons of mass destruction, building partnership capacity, 
security force assistance, counterinsurgency, defense 
intelligence, and the regional conflicts in Afghanistan, Syrian 
Arab Republic, State of Libya, and East Africa, which are 
addressed elsewhere in this report.

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel continued oversight 
of military personnel issues including; military service end-
strength, compensation and benefits, commissaries, morale 
welfare and recreation programs, military medical care, the 
Uniformed Code of Military Justice and other issues that 
impacted military personnel in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 
2017. The subcommittee conducted numerous oversight hearings 
and briefings with the Department of Defense and outside 
organizations and individuals as detailed below as well as 
multiple oversight trips to bases and countries when military 
personnel are stationed.
    On February 4, 2015, the subcommittee received the initial 
report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel.
    On February 11, 2015 the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on the final recommendations from the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
    On March 17, 2015, the subcommittee met for a closed Member 
Roundtable on the retirement and quality of life 
recommendations from the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission to focus on military retirement 
reform.
    On March 19, 2015, the subcommittee met for a roundtable on 
the health care recommendations from the Military Compensation 
and Retirement Modernization Commission.
    On March 25, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on the stakeholder's views on the recommendations of 
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 
Commission.
    On June 11, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the 
Department of Defense views on the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations for 
military health care reform.
    On June 24, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive a closed 
briefing on the implementation of the recommendations of the 
reviews following the sexual assault incidents at Lackland Air 
Force Base and to receive an update on the Air Force Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Program.
    On September 17, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive the 
recommendations and the results of the military resale study 
conducted by the Boston Consulting Group.
    On October 23, 2015, the subcommittee met for a roundtable 
briefing on the Department of Defense views on military resale 
reform.
    On November 4, 2015, the subcommittee met for a closed 
briefing on Health Insurance/ TRICARE 101.
    On November 18, 2015, the subcommittee met for a briefing 
from former military Surgeons General on military health care 
reform.
    On December 9, 2015, the subcommittee met to hear testimony 
from the stakeholders on the Survivor Benefit Plan, Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation financial offset.
    On January 13, 2016 the subcommittee met to hear testimony 
from the Department of Defense on the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations on 
military resale reform.
    On February 3, 2016, the subcommittee met to hear testimony 
on the mission and benefits of military treatment facilities.
    On February 24, 2016, the subcommittee met to hear 
testimony on the Defense Health Agency's budgeting and 
structure.
    On March 3, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
roundtable briefing on military personnel posture for fiscal 
year 2017.
    On March 17, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
roundtable briefing on stakeholder views on the Department of 
Defense's FY17 modernization of the TRICARE health plan 
proposal.
    On June 10, 2016, the subcommittee received a briefing from 
the Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program for the 
Department of Defense (DOD) on the initiatives undertaken to 
ensure effectiveness and compliance of the Service's Voting 
Assistance Programs. The briefing included the current status 
of voting assistance programs and their efficacy; initiatives 
to improve tracking of military and overseas absentee ballots; 
and actions taken in response to the findings of the March 2016 
DOD Inspector General Report.
    On June 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
roundtable briefing regarding an update on the Department of 
Defense and military services' suicide prevention program.
    On June 22, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
roundtable briefing from DOD witnesses regarding a report on 
the rights of conscience protections for service members and 
their chaplains.
    On September 8, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on H.R. 4298: Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act 
and H.R. 5458: Veterans TRICARE Choice Act.
    On September 13, 2016, the subcommittee continued its 
oversight efforts and met to receive a roundtable briefing on 
an update on commissary reform from the Department of Defense.
    On December 7, 2016, the subcommittee met to hear testimony 
from the National Guard and Department of Defense on the 
California National Guard bonus repayment issue.

                       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 3, 2015, the committee received a briefing on 
``Worldwide Readiness Update.'' The briefing provided an update 
to members on the current state of readiness across the 
military departments and the functional and geographic 
combatant commands (COCOM) with a specific focus on current 
shortfalls and gaps. The briefing also highlighted some of the 
most resource-intensive operations plans and the military 
departments' capacity to provide sufficient ready forces to 
meet COCOM requirements.
    On March 3, 2015, the committee received testimony on 
``Alignment of Infrastructure Investment and Risk and Defense 
Strategic Requirements.'' This hearing explored the fiscal year 
2016 military construction, family housing, base realignment 
and closure, and facilities operations and maintenance budget 
request; specifically, to what extent the risks in 
infrastructure investment have been calculated, what has been 
the impact of reduced investment, is the new base realignment 
and closure request appropriate in the near term, and does the 
infrastructure investment strategy align with the National 
Security Strategy and Defense Strategic Guidance?
    On March 26, 2015, the committee received testimony on 
``The Department of Defense's Readiness Posture.'' The four 
military vice chiefs of staff provided testimony on each of the 
military services' fiscal year 2016 budget requests, 
priorities, and key readiness-related issues. The hearing 
allowed Members to learn more about specific investments and 
projected spending on operations, training, exercises, flight 
hour programs, weapons system, sustainment, reset and 
retrograde, and depot maintenance. It also provided Members an 
opportunity to learn about operation and maintenance funding 
investments required to sustain platforms outside the military 
services' planned budgets (such as the A-10), and what 
readiness investments are most at risk under sequestration or 
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) spending levels.
    On April 15, 2015, the committee met to receive a 
roundtable briefing on U.S. Transportation Command.
    On June 12, 2015, the committee met to receive a classified 
briefing on ``Army Force Generation: requirements and 
challenges.''
    On July 30, 2015, the committee met to receive a classified 
hearing on ``Status of European Command Training and Readiness 
Initiatives.''
    On September 10, 2015, the committee met to receive 
testimony on the Navy's ``Optimized Fleet Response Plan.''
    On September 18, 2015, the committee met to receive a 
classified briefing on the ``State of Air Force Readiness.''
    On October 1, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on ``Public Shipyards' Role in Meeting Operational 
Requirements.''
    On October 23, 2015, the committee met with the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive a 
classified briefing on the ``South China Sea--Current 
Operations and Future Requirements for Naval Forces.''
    On November 3, 2015, the committee met with the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive 
testimony on ``Aircraft Carrier--Presence and Surge Limitations 
and Expanding Power Projection Options.''
    On December 3, 2015, the committee received testimony on 
``Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support 
Investments on Readiness.''
    On January 8, 2016, the subcommittee received testimony on 
``Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support 
Investments on Navy Readiness.''
    On January 13, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on ``Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base 
Operating Support Investments on Air Force Readiness.''
    On February 11, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on ``Regionally Aligned Forces-AFRICOM.''
    On February 12, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on ``Department of the Air Force 2017 Operation and 
Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture.''
    On February 26, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on ``Department of the Army 2017 Operation and 
Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture.''
    On March 3, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive testimony 
on ``The Marine Corps 2017 Operation and Maintenance Budget 
Request and Readiness Posture.''
    On March 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on ``The U.S. Transportation Command Fiscal Year 2017 
Readiness Posture.''
    On March 17, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on ``The Department of the Navy 2017 Operations and 
Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture.''
    On April 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on the ``Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress.''
    On May 23, 2016, the subcommittee sent a congressional 
delegation to the USS Eisenhower (CVN 69) jointly with the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive a 
briefing on ``The Fleet of the Future: Building the 21st 
Century Navy.''
    On May 26, 2016, the subcommittee met jointly with the 
subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive 
testimony on ``Navy Force Structure Readiness: Perspectives 
from the Fleet.''
    On June 10, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on ``Update on DOD Civilian Personnel Initiatives.''
    On July 6, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive testimony 
on ``Aviation Readiness.''
    On September 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
briefing on ``Arctic Readiness.''
    On December 1, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a 
classified briefing on ``Army Reserve and Army National Guard 
Readiness.''

             Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces

    The subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces 
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in 
the budget requests for fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017.
    In addition, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings 
on the following topics: Air Force Projection Forces Aviation 
Programs and Capabilities for Fiscal Year 2016; a joint hearing 
with the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation of the House Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure on the Naval Cooperative Strategy; Role of 
Surface Forces in Presence, Deterrence, and Warfighting; 
Capacity of U.S. Navy to Project Power with Large Surface 
Combatants; a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness 
on Aircraft Carrier--Presence and Surge Limitations and 
Expanding Power Projection Options; Acquisition Efficiency and 
the Future Navy Force; Game Changing Innovations and the Future 
Surface Warfare; Game Changing and Innovations and the Future 
of Surface Warfare; Carrier Air Wing and the Future of Naval 
Aviation; Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs and 
Capabilities for Fiscal Year 2017; Logistics and Sealift Force 
Requirements; Building the Navy of the Future: A Look at Navy 
Force Structure; a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 
Readiness on the Fleet of the Future: Building the 21st 
Century; a joint hearing with the subcommittee on Readiness on 
Navy Force Structure Readiness: Perspectives from the Fleet; a 
joint hearing with the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on South China Sea 
Maritime Disputes; Naval Dominance in Undersea Warfare; Next 
Generation Air Space Control-Ensuring Air Force Compliance by 
January 1, 2020; and Seapower and Projection Forces in the 
South China Sea.
    In addition to hearings, the subcommittee conducted 
numerous briefings on the following topics: Small Surface 
Combatant Task Force; Long Range Strike Bomber; Shipbuilding 
Overview and Industrial Base Implications; SSN/SSBN Security 
Technology Program; Navy Force Structure Assessment, Deployment 
Gaps, and Presence Trends; Mine Countermeasures Capabilities 
and Challenges; South China Sea--Current Operations and Future 
Requirements for Naval Forces; and Navy Surface Warfare--
Distributed Lethality; Navy Surface Warfare and Distributed 
Lethality Concepts; Navy Threats and Capabilities; B-21 Cost; 
and Worldwide Submarine Operations.

                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held five hearings 
regarding the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request. On 
February 26, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the 
``Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Strategic Forces.'' On 
March 19, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal 
Year 2016 Budget Request for Missile Defense.'' On March 24, 
2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense.'' On March 25, 2016, 
the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for National Security Space.'' On April 15, 
2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for Nuclear Forces.''
    In addition to oversight of the President's fiscal year 
2016 budget request, the subcommittee held several oversight 
hearings during the first session of the 114th Congress. On 
September 10, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``The 
Obama Administration's Deal with Iran: Implications for Missile 
Defense and Nonproliferation.'' On December 1, 2015, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on ``Russian Arms Control Cheating: 
Violation of the INF Treaty and the Administration's Responses 
One Year Later,'' to review and assess the Administration's 
responses to the Russian Federation's violation of the 
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. On December 8, 2015, 
the subcommittee held a hearing on ``Prompt Global Strike: 
American and Foreign Developments.''
    The subcommittee also held numerous briefings during the 
first session of the 114th Congress. On October 1, 2015, the 
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on the 
missile defeat enterprise and left-of-launch. On October 22, 
2015, the subcommittee met with the Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces to receive a classified briefing on ICBM 
field security and implementation of the Nuclear Enterprise 
Review recommendations. On November 17, 2015, the subcommittee 
met to receive a classified briefing on overview and status of 
the nuclear command, control, and communications system.
    The subcommittee held five hearings regarding the 
President's fiscal year 2017 budget request. On February 11, 
2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities.'' On 
February 24, 2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``U.S. 
Strategic Forces Posture.'' On March 2, 2016, the subcommittee 
held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for 
Department of Defense Nuclear Forces.'' On March 15, 2016, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget 
Request for National Security Space.'' On April 14, 2016, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Missile Defeat Posture and 
Strategy of the United States--the Fiscal Year 2017 President's 
Budget Request.''
    Furthermore, during the second the session of the 114th 
Congress, the subcommittee held several briefings. On January 
7, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing 
on WMD threats and space threats. On February 2, 2016, the 
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on 
proliferation threats from 3-D printing. On March 22, 2016, the 
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on the Fiscal 
Year 2017 Budget Request for Cooperative Threat Reduction plans 
and programs.

              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 missiles; armor and 
ground vehicles; munitions; rotorcraft; individual equipment to 
include tactical networks and radios; counter improvised 
explosive device equipment; intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance platforms to include unmanned aerial systems, 
and associated support equipment, including National Guard and 
Reserve equipment programs. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces also provided oversight on policy, such as 
threats and force structure requirements, as appropriate within 
the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This includes current or 
future acquisition programs that relate to gaps in the 
capabilities required to execute current national military 
strategies, as well as the allocation of acquisition resources. 
This would also include military service specific acquisition 
policies as long as there is a nexus to the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
focused on maintaining Air Dominance and Air Superiority, as 
well as policies ensuring effective use of land forces as a 
strategic deterrent.
    The subcommittee conducted four oversight hearings during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget request, 
including the following: March 19, 2015: ``Army and Marine 
Corps Ground Force and Rotorcraft Modernization Programs and 
the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request''; March 26, 2015: ``Fiscal 
Year 2016 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat Aviation 
Programs''; April 14, 2015: ``The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
Program for Fiscal Year 2016''; October 21, 2015: ``Update of 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program for Fiscal Year 2016.''
    The subcommittee conducted four oversight hearings during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2017 budget request, 
including the following: March 2, 2016: ``Ground Force 
Modernization Budget''; March 16, 2016: ``Fiscal Year 2017 Army 
and Air Force Rotorcraft Modernization Programs''; March 23, 
2016: ``Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program 
and the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request.''
    In addition to oversight hearings, the subcommittee held 
various briefings and events to conduct oversight including 
classified briefings: February 12, 2015: ``Close Air Support''; 
February 26, 2015: ``Threats to Air Dominance and U.S. 5th 
Generation Capability''; June 18, 2015: ``Threats to U.S. 
Rotorcraft''; September 9, 2015: ``Issues and Challenges Facing 
NATO's Allied Land Command''; September 29, 2015: ``Update on 
the Global IED Threat''; October 27, 2015: ``The Challenges 
Facing U.S. Ground Forces Rotorcraft''; December 10, 2015: 
``Future of Land Warfare''; February 4, 2016: ``Hearing on the 
Issues and Concerns Regarding Naval Strike Fighters''; February 
10, 2016: ``Hearing on the Recommendations from the National 
Commission on the Future of the Army''; February 26, 2016: 
``Russian Air Defense Systems and Russian Ground Systems''; 
June 8, 2016: ``The Marine Corps Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle 
Strategy and Addressing Readiness Challenges''; June 18, 2016: 
``Field Hearing on Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth 
Generation Fighter Aircraft''; July 13, 2016: ``Hearing on Air 
Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighters.''
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
April 23, 2015, and on Wednesday April 29, 2015, that was 
ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). 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.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
Wednesday, April 20, 2016, and on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, that 
was ultimately included in S. 2943, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducts 
comprehensive, in-depth oversight investigations, holds 
hearings, briefings, and other activities, and makes 
recommendations to the committee for consideration and 
potential legislative action.

Inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 Transfer to Qatar of 
        Five Law-of-war Detainees

    As described elsewhere in this report, in December 2015, 
the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations and the committee chairman issued a 104-page 
report on the inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 
transfer to the State of Qatar of five law-of-war detainees in 
connection with the recovery of a captive U.S. Army sergeant. 
The report included dissenting views of the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and the 
committee ranking member. The report addressed the rationale 
for the transfer from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
(GTMO), the process by which the transfer decision was made, 
the national security implications of the transfer, and related 
topics.
    This work was the continuation of activities directed to be 
undertaken in 2014 by the previous committee chairman. In the 
course of this investigation, subcommittee staff conducted 
transcribed interviews of 16 witnesses, including the General 
Counsel of the Department of Defense, Commander, U.S. Southern 
Command, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, the 
individual who was ``performing the duties of'' the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy in the absence of a confirmed 
nominee at the time of the transfer, the Department's Special 
Envoy for the Closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, 
the Department's Deputy Special Envoy, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central 
Asia, the Director of the Joint Staff's Pakistan-Afghanistan 
Coordination Cell, the Commander, Joint Task Force-GTMO, two 
individuals who believed they had knowledge relevant to the 
inquiry, and others. The subcommittee staff also reviewed over 
4,000 pages of classified and unclassified documents produced 
by the Department of Defense, hours of video, and conducted a 
staff oversight trip to Qatar, and facilitated two 
congressional delegations to GTMO.

Oversight of the Nuclear Enterprise

    On June 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Update on 
Findings and Recommendations of the 2014 Department of Defense 
Nuclear Enterprise Review.'' Witnesses were: Dr. Yisroel 
Brumer, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Office of the 
Secretary of Defense; Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, Director of 
Strategic Systems Programs, U.S. Navy; Major General Jack 
Weinstein, Commander of the 20th Numbered Air Force, U.S. Air 
Force; and Major General Richard Clark, Commander of the 8th 
Numbered Air Force, U.S. Air Force.

The Department of Defense's Assured Access to Micro-electronics

    On October 28, 2015, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations convened a hearing to consider the Department of 
Defense's acquisition and application of microelectronic 
components, and to assess the potential risks posed by unsecure 
or inauthentic parts. The hearing also discussed activities 
that the Department is undertaking to mitigate any challenges 
posed by the microelectronics supply and manufacturing process. 
Witnesses were: Ms. Kristen Baldwin, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering, Office of the 
Secretary of Defense; Mr. Andre Gudger, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Acting) for Manufacturing and Industrial 
Base Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense; Mr. Brett 
Hamilton, Division Chief Engineer for Trusted Microelectronics, 
Naval Surface Warfare Center--Crane, Indiana, U.S. Navy; and 
Ms. Marie Mak, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management 
Team, Government Accountability Office.

Oversight of the Guantanamo Detainee Transfer Process

    As described elsewhere in this report, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations held hearings and briefings to 
receive information on the process by which the Administration 
transfers law-of-war detainees from U.S. Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to other countries and the activities of 
detainees after their transfer.

Afghanistan Oversight

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened 
two hearings in connection with its continued oversight efforts 
of U.S. efforts in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. On 
February 12, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Assessing the 
Development of Afghanistan National Security Forces.'' This 
hearing focused on the evolving security situation in 
Afghanistan and the policy, strategy, and posture required to 
develop, support and sustain the Government of Afghanistan. The 
subcommittee was brought up to date on the Department of 
Defense's efforts to train, advise, and assist Afghanistan's 
security forces. Witnesses were: Mr. Kent Breedlove, Senior 
Defense Analyst--Afghanistan, Defense Intelligence Agency; Ms. 
Christine Abizaid, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, Office of the 
Secretary of Defense; Colonel Stephen L. A. Michael, U.S. Army, 
Deputy Director for Pakistan Afghanistan and Transregional 
Threats Coordination Cell, Office of the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff; the Hon. John Sopko, Special Inspector General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction; and Mr. Michael Child, Deputy 
Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations, 
Department of Defense.
    Subsequently, the subcommittee convened a hearing entitled, 
``Evaluating DOD Investments: Case Studies in Afghanistan 
Initiatives and US Weapons Sustainment'' on April 13, 2016. The 
subcommittee received testimony regarding the Department's 
decision-making, oversight, and execution of the following 
projects and programs of the Task Force for Business Stability 
Operations, and of the Defense Logistics Agency: the Afghan 
Compressed Natural Gas Infrastructure project; the TFBSO 
Housing Accommodations and Security requirements; the Rare 
Blonde Italian Cashmere Goat Textile production project; and, 
the Defense Logistics Agency's aviation parts quality assurance 
program. Witnesses included the Honorable John Sopko, Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Ms. 
Jacqueline L. Wicecarver, Deputy Inspector General for Auditing 
(Acting), Department of Defense; and Mr. Charlie Lilli, Deputy 
Director of Aviation and Head of Aviation Contracting Activity, 
Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency.

Oversight of Foreign Military Sales

    In 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
convened a series of briefings and hearings to evaluate the 
U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. On April 20, 2016, the 
subcommittee held a briefing with Mr. Paul Kerr, Analyst, 
Congressional Research Service; the Honorable William G. P. 
Monahan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security and 
Security Assistance, Department of State; and Vice Admiral 
Joseph W. Rixey, Director of the Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency.
    On May 11, 2016, the subcommittee convened a hearing 
entitled ``U.S. Perspectives on the Department of Defense's 
Policies, Roles, and Responsibilities for Foreign Military 
Sales'' in order to receive the defense industrial base's input 
on how to improve the execution of Foreign Military Sales. 
Witnesses were: Mr. Tom Davis, Senior Fellow at the National 
Defense Industrial Association; and Mr. Remy Nathan, Vice 
President for International Affairs from the Aerospace 
Industries Association.
    On May 17, 2016, the subcommittee convened a hearing 
entitled, ``Assessing the Department of Defense's Execution of 
Responsibilities in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program.'' 
The objective of this hearing was to further familiarize 
Members with the Foreign Military Sales process and how it is 
managed by the Department. Witnesses were: Vice Admiral Joseph 
Rixey, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Security Cooperation 
Agency, Department of Defense; Ms. Claire Grady, Director, 
Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Undersecretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Ms. 
Beth McCormick, Director, Defense Technology and Security 
Administration, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics.

Oversight of the Department of Defense Human Intelligence Capabilities

    On July 12, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities convened a joint classified briefing entitled, 
``Department of Defense Human Intelligence Capabilities--The 
Defense Clandestine Service: Organizational History and 
Proposed Changes.'' This briefing focused on the creation of 
the Defense Clandestine Service and provided an overview of the 
Defense Clandestine Service's operations, as well as internal 
and external oversight.

Oversight of the European Reassurance Initiative

    On July 13, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the 
European Reassurance Initiative.'' Members received testimony 
about how the Department of Defense has been implementing the 
European Reassurance Initiative since Fiscal Year 2015, and how 
the Department plans to execute the initiative through fiscal 
year 2017. During this hearing, the witnesses described the 
opportunities and challenges the Department faces in 
implementing the European Reassurance Initiative in the current 
security environment and budgetary constraints. Witnesses were: 
Major General David Allvin, U.S. Air Force, J-5, U.S. European 
Command; Ms. Rachel Ellehuus, Principal Director, Europe and 
NATO Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense; and Mr. Tom 
Tyra, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army.

Implications of Force Management Levels in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened a 
briefing and hearing series to assess the issues related to 
Force Management Levels (also known as ``troop caps''), 
including financial and readiness considerations, and 
considerations regarding sovereignty and host nation 
acceptance. This briefing and hearing series also considered 
how Force Management Levels fit within broader warfighting 
strategies. The briefing was held on November 15, 2016, and the 
hearing was held on December 1, 2016. Both were entitled, 
``Force Management Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan; Readiness 
and Strategic Considerations.'' Witnesses at the hearing were: 
Mr. Cary B. Russell, Director, Military Operations and 
Warfighter Support, Government Accountability Office; General 
Carter Ham, U.S. Army, Retired; and Lieutenant General James 
Dubik, U.S. Army, Retired.

Oversight of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Program

    On December 8, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Review 
of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program.'' The 
subcommittee received testimony on the Navy's current 
requirements for a small surface combatant capability and 
explored the current acquisition, sustainment, and personnel 
strategies. The subcommittee also received testimony regarding 
current LCS testing and evaluation, and received assessments of 
the Navy's acquisition, sustainment, and personnel strategies. 
Witnesses were: the Honorable Sean Stackley, Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and 
Acquisition, Department of the Navy; Vice Admiral Thomas 
Rowden, U.S. Navy Commander, Naval Surface Forces; Dr. J. 
Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, 
Department of Defense; Ms. Michele Mackin, Director, 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability 
Office; and Mr. Ron O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs, 
Congressional Research Office.

                              PUBLICATIONS

                             House Reports

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Report Number          Date Filed        Bill Number        Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
114-102..........  May 5, 2015..........  H.R. 1735....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2016.
114-102 Part 2...  May 12, 2015.........  H.R. 1735....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2016.
114-537..........  May 4, 2016..........  H.R. 4909....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2017.
114-537 Part 2...  May 12, 2016.........  H.R. 4909....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Committee Prints

    Committee Print No. 1--Rules of the Committee on Armed 
Services, House of Representatives of the United States, 114th 
Congress 2015-2016, adopted January 14, 2015.
    Committee Print No. 2--National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016. Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory 
Statement to accompany S. 1356 (Public Law 114-92). November 
2015.

                         Published Proceedings

    H.A.S.C. 114-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee 
Organization. Jan. 14, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-2--Full Committee hearing on A Case for 
Reform: Improving DOD's Ability to Respond to the Pace of 
Technological Change. Jan. 28, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-3--Full Committee hearing on Worldwide 
Threats. Feb. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Wounded Warrior Program Update. Feb. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-5--Full Committee hearing on Final 
Recommendations from the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission. Feb. 4, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-6--Full Committee hearing on The Fiscal Year 
2016 Budget Request: A View from Outside Experts: Alternative 
Budgets and Strategic Choices. Feb. 11, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-7--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Final Recommendations from the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission. Feb. 11, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-8--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Update on Detainee Transfers from 
Guantanamo. Feb. 12, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-9--Full Committee hearing on What is the State 
of Islamic Extremism: Key Trends, Challenges, and Implications 
for U.S. Policy. Feb. 13, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-10--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--How is DOD Responding to 
Emerging Security Challenges in Europe? Feb. 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-11--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for 
Seapower and Projection Forces. Feb. 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-12--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Information Technology Investments and Programs: 
Supporting Current Operations and Planning for the Future 
Threat Environment. Feb. 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-13--Full Committee hearing on Outside 
Perspectives on the President's Proposed Authorization for the 
Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the 
Levant. Feb. 26, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-14--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for Strategic Forces. Feb. 26, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-15--Full Committee hearing on The President's 
Proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL 
and U.S. Policy, Strategy, and Posture in the Greater Middle 
East. Mar. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-16--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Alignment of 
Infrastructure Investment and Risk and Defense Strategic 
Requirements. Mar. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-17--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--U.S. Policy, Strategy, and 
Posture in Afghanistan: Post-2014 Transition, Risks, and 
Lessons Learned. Mar. 4, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-18--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Air 
Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs and Capabilities for 
Fiscal Year 2016. Mar. 4, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-19--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Cyber Operations: Improving the 
Military Cybersecurity Posture in an Uncertain Threat 
Environment. Mar. 4, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-20--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Fiscal Year 2016 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Military 
Departments. Mar. 17, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-21--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Assuring Assured Access to Space. Mar. 17, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-22--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The President's Proposed 
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against ISIL and 
the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request from the Department of Defense. Mar. 18, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-23--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Naval Cooperative Strategy (joint with 
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure). Mar. 18, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-24--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Special Operations Forces in an Uncertain Threat 
Environment: A Review of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request 
for U.S. Special Operations Command. Mar. 18, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-25--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile 
Defense Programs. Mar. 19, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-26--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2016 Ground Force Modernization and Rotorcraft 
Modernization Programs. Mar. 19, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-27--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense. Mar. 24, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-28--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Stakeholder's Views on the Recommendations of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. Mar. 25, 
2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-29--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategy and 
the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical 
Biological Defense Program. Mar. 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-30--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for National Security Space. Mar. 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-31--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Department of 
Defense's Readiness Posture. Mar. 26, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-32--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Combat Aviation Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request. Mar. 26, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-33--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Science and 
Technology Programs: Laying the Groundwork to Maintain 
Technological Superiority. Mar. 26, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-34--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Member Day--National Defense 
Priorities from Members for the Fiscal Year 2016 National 
Defense Authorization Act. Apr. 14, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-35--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program and the Fiscal 
Year 2016 Budget Request. Apr. 14, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-36--Full Committee hearing on The Risk of 
Losing Military Technology Superiority and Its Implications for 
U.S. Policy, Strategy, and Posture in the Asia-Pacific. Apr. 
15, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-37--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on The Role of Surface Forces in Presence, 
Deterrence, and Warfighting. Apr. 15, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-38--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016 
Budget Request for Nuclear Forces. Apr. 15, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-39--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on The Department of Defense Views on the Military Compensation 
and Retirement Modernization Commission's Recommendations for 
Military Health Care Reform. June 11, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-40--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Policy and 
Strategy in the Middle East. June 17, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-41--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Capacity of U.S. Navy to Project Power with 
Large Surface Combatants. June 17, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-42--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on The Counterterrorism Strategy Against 
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Are We on the Right 
Path? June 24, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-43--Full Committee hearing on Nuclear 
Deterrence in the 21st Century. June 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-44--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Update on Findings and 
Recommendations of the 2014 Department of Defense Nuclear 
Enterprise Review. June 25, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-45--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Assuring National Security Space: Investing in American 
Industry to End Reliance on Russian Rocket Engines. June 26, 
2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-46--Full Committee hearing on Potential 
Implications in the Region of the Iran Deal. July 29, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-47--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on The Future of Air Force Long-Range Strike--
Capabilities and Employment Concepts. Sept. 9, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-48--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Optimized Fleet Response Plan. Sept. 10, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-49--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Obama Administration's Deal with Iran: Implications for 
Missile Defense and Nonproliferation. Sept. 10, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-50--Full Committee hearing on Outside 
Perspectives on the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. Sept. 
29, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-51--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on USAF Bomber Force Structure--Current 
Requirements and Future Vision. Sept. 29, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-52--Full Committee hearing on Implementing the 
Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. Sept. 30, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-53--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Public Shipyards' Role in Meeting Operational Requirements. 
Oct. 1, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-54--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Plutonium Disposition and the MOX Project. Oct. 7, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-55--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Strategy in 
Afghanistan. Oct. 8, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-56--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Update on Military Suicide Prevention Programs. Oct. 8, 
2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-57--Full Committee hearing on Examining 
Department of Defense Security Cooperation: When It Works and 
When It Doesn't. Oct. 21, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-58--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
Program. Oct. 21, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-59--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Countering Adversarial Propaganda: 
Charting An Effective Course in the Contested Information 
Environment. Oct. 22, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-60--Full Committee hearing on Shortening the 
Defense Acquisition Cycle. Oct. 27, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-61--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Game Changers--Undersea Warfare. Oct. 27, 
2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-62--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Transition Assistance Program--A Unity of Effort. Oct. 28, 
2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-63--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Assessing DOD's Assured Access to 
Microelectronics in Support of U.S. National Security 
Requirements. Oct. 28, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-64--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection 
Forces and Readiness joint hearing on Aircraft Carrier--
Presence and Surge Limitations and Expanding Power Projection 
Options. Nov. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-65--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Future Options for the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent--Views from 
Project Atom. Nov. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-66--Full Committee hearing on Outside Views on 
the Strategy for Iraq and Syria. Nov. 18, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-67--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Advancing the Science and Acceptance of 
Autonomy for Future Defense Systems. Nov. 19, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-68--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Strategy 
for Syria and Iraq and Its Implications for the Region. Dec. 1, 
2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-69--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Acquisition Efficiency and the Future Navy 
Force. Dec. 1, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-70--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Russian Arms Control Cheating: Violation of the INF Treaty 
and the Administration's Responses One Year Later (joint with 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs). Dec. 1, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-71--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support 
Investments on Army and Marine Corps Readiness. Dec. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-72--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Stakeholder Views on Military Health Care. Dec. 3, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-73--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Prompt Global Strike: American and Foreign Developments. 
Dec. 8, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-74--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Concurrent Receipt of Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency 
and Indemnity Compensation. Dec. 9, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-75--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Game Changing Innovations and the Future of 
Surface Warfare. Dec. 9, 2015.
    H.A.S.C. 114-76--Full Committee hearing on Acquisition 
Reform: Experimentation and Agility. Jan. 7, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-77--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support 
Investments on Navy Readiness. Jan. 8, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-78--Full Committee hearing on Outside Views on 
the U.S. Strategy for Iraq and Syria and the Evolution of 
Islamic Extremism. Jan. 12, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-79--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Academies Study on Peer Review and Design 
Competition in the NNSA National Security Laboratories. Jan. 
12, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-80--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support 
Investments on Air Force Readiness. Jan. 13, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-81--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Views on Commissary Reform. Jan. 13, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-82--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan in 
2016: The Evolving Security Situation and U.S. Policy, 
Strategy, and Posture. Feb. 2, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-83--Full Committee hearing on Acquisition 
Reform: Starting Programs Well. Feb. 3, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-84--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Treatment Facilities. Feb. 3, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-85--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Outside Views on Biodefense for the 
Department of Defense. Feb. 3, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-86--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Naval Strike Fighters: Issues and Concerns. 
Feb. 4, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-87--Full Committee hearing on Understanding 
and Deterring Russia: U.S. Policies and Strategies. Feb. 10, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-88--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Recommendations from the National Commission 
on the Future of the Army. Feb. 10, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-89--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Department of Defense Countering Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Policy and Programs for Fiscal Year 2017. Feb. 10, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-90--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities. Feb. 11, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-91--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Carrier Air Wing and the Future of Naval 
Aviation. Feb. 11, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-92--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Department of the 
Air Force 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and 
Readiness Posture. Feb. 12, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-93--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Assessing the Development of 
Afghanistan National Security Forces. Feb. 12, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-94--Full Committee hearing on The Challenge of 
Conventional and Hybrid Warfare in the Asia Pacific Region: The 
Changing Nature of the Security Environment and Its Effect on 
Military Planning. Feb. 24, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-95--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2017 Science and 
Technology Programs: Defense Innovation to Create the Future 
Military Force. Feb. 24, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-96--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--U.S. Strategic 
Forces Posture. Feb. 24, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-97--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Defense Health Agency: Budgeting and Structure. Feb. 24, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-98--Full Committee hearing on Full Spectrum 
Challenges in Europe and Their Effects on Deterrence and 
Defense. Feb. 25, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-99--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Department of the Navy 2017 Budget Request and Seapower and 
Projection Forces. Feb. 25, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-100--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Department of the 
Army 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and 
Readiness Posture. Feb. 26, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-101--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Ensuring Medical Readiness in the Future. Feb. 26, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-102--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Member Day--National Defense 
Priorities from Members for the FY 2017 National Defense 
Authorization Act. Mar. 1, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-103--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Air 
Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs and Capabilities for 
Fiscal Year 2017. Mar. 1, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-104--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Special Operations Forces in an Evolving Threat 
Environment: A Review of the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request 
for U.S. Special Operations Command. Mar. 1, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-105--Full Committee hearing on World Wide 
Threats. Mar. 2, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-106--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Ground Force Modernization Budget Request. Mar. 2, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-107--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 
Budget Request for Department of Defense Nuclear Forces. Mar. 
2, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-108--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Marine Corps 
2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness 
Posture. Mar. 3, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-109--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The U.S. 
Transportation Command Fiscal Year 2017 Readiness Posture. Mar. 
15, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-110--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 
Budget Request for National Security Space. Mar. 15, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-111--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Fiscal Year 2017 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Military 
Departments. Mar. 16, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-112--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for U.S. Cyber 
Command: Preparing for Operations in the Cyber Domain. Mar. 16, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-113--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2017 Army and Air Force Rotorcraft Modernization 
Programs. Mar. 16, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-114--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Department of 
the Navy 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and 
Readiness Posture. Mar. 17, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-115--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--The Fiscal Year 2017 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of 
Defense. Mar. 22, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-116--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Logistics and Sealift Force Requirements. 
Mar. 22, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-117--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 Information Technology and Cyber 
Programs: Foundations for a Secure Warfighting Network. Mar. 
22, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-118--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program and the 
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request. Mar. 23, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-119--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Building the Navy of the Future: A Look at 
Navy Force Structure. Apr. 13, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-120--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Missile Defeat 
Posture and Strategy of the United States--the Fiscal Year 2017 
President's Budget Request. Apr. 14, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-121--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Evaluating DOD Investments: Case 
Studies in Afghanistan Initiatives and U.S. Weapons 
Sustainment. Apr. 15, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-122--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on U.S. Industry Perspectives on the 
Department of Defense's Policies, Roles and Responsibilities 
for Foreign Military Sales. May 11, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-123--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Assessing the Department of Defense's 
Execution of Responsibilities in the U.S. Foreign Military 
Sales Program. May 17, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-124--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection 
Forces and Readiness joint hearing on Navy Force Structure and 
Readiness: Perspectives from the Fleet. May 26, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-125--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Stopping the Money Flow: The War on 
Terror Finance (joint with Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs). June 9, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-126--Full Committee hearing on Department of 
Defense Update on the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness 
(FIAR) Plan. June 15, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-127--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth 
Generation Fighter Aircraft. June 18, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-128--Full Committee hearing on Military Cyber 
Operations. June 22, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-129--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Aviation Readiness. July 6, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-130--Full Committee hearing on Goldwater-
Nichols Reform: The Way Ahead. July 7, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-131--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on South China Sea Maritime Disputes (joint with 
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs). July 7, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-132--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth 
Generation Fighters. July 13, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-133--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Oversight of the European Reassurance 
Initiative. July 13, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-134--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Naval Dominance in Undersea Warfare. July 14, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-135--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on President Obama's Nuclear Deterrent Modernization Plans and 
Budgets: The Military Requirements. July 14, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-136--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Deferred Maintenance in the Nuclear Security Enterprise: 
Safety and Mission Risks. Sept. 7, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-137--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Views on H.R. 4298: Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial 
Act and H.R. 5458: Veterans TRICARE Choice Act. Sept. 8, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-138--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Next Generation Air Space Control--Ensuring 
Air Force Compliance by January 1, 2020. Sept. 14, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-139--Full Committee hearing on 15 Years after 
9-11: The State of the Fight Against Islamic Terrorism. Sept. 
21, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-140--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces in the South 
China Sea. Sept. 21, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-141--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Security Space: 21st Century Challenges, 20th 
Century Organization. Sept. 27, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-142--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Laboratories: 
Innovation through Science and Engineering in Support of 
Military Operations. Sept. 28, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-143--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Force Management Levels in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; Readiness and Strategic Considerations. Dec. 1, 
2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-144--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on California National Guard Bonus Repayment Issue. 
Dec. 7, 2016.
    H.A.S.C. 114-145--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Oversight Review of the U.S. Navy's 
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program. Dec. 8, 2016.

                             PRESS RELEASES


                             First Session

    December 2015:
    12/31/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 4-8
    12/17/15--Thornberry On Defense Secretary's Improper Use Of 
Personal Email For Official Business
    12/16/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: Dec. 21-Jan. 1
    12/11/15--Chairmen Nunes, Thornberry, Frelinghuysen 
Announce Creation of Joint Task Force to Investigate 
Allegations of Intelligence Manipulation
    12/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: December 14-18
    12/10/15--Thornberry/Hartzler On Release Of Taliban 5 
Report
    12/9/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    12/9/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    12/8/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    12/7/15Byrne/Gallego To Host Press Conference With 
Colombian Ambassador
    12/6/15--Chairman Thornberry on the President's Address to 
the Nation
    12/3/15--Heck Statement on Secretary Carter's Announcement 
Opening All Combat Jobs to Women
    12/3/15--Armed Services Committee Chairmen Statement On 
Decision To Open All Combat Positions To Women
    12/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    12/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    12/2/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: December 7-11
    12/2/15--Thornberry On WSJ GTMO Story
    12/1/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    12/1/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    12/1/15--Chairman Thornberry's Opening Remarks
    November 2015:
    11/25/15--National Defense Authorization Act for 2016 
Becomes Law
    11/25/15--Armed Services Committee Leaders on Kunduz 
Investigation
    11/24/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 30--December 4
    11/19/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 23-27
    11/19/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    11/18/15--Thornberry on White House Decision to Delay GTMO 
Plan
    11/18/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 16-20
    11/17/15--Thornberry On OPM/DHS/OMB Failure to Appear 
Before HASC
    11/16/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
    11/15--/15--Thornberry Talks Paris Attacks With Maria 
Bartiromo
    11/13/15--Thornberry on Paris Attacks
    11/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 16-20
    11/4/15--FY16 NDAA Resource Kit
    11/4/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 9-13
    11/3/15--FY16 NDAA
    11/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    11/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    October 2015:
    10/30/15--Thornberry On Reports Of White House Decision To 
Send Troops To Syria
    10/28/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    10/28/15--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
    10/28/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Today
    10/27/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 2-6
    10/27/15--Thornberry To Support Bipartisan Budget Agreement
    10/27/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    10/26/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 26-30
    10/22/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    10/22/15--President Will Veto the Defense Bill
    10/22/15--Thornberry, McCain and Congressional Iraq and 
Afghanistan Vets on NDAA Veto
    10/21/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    10/20/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 26-30
    10/15/15--Thornberry On Afghanistan Troop Levels
    10/14/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 19-23
    10/9/15--Thornberry on President's Failed Syria Policy
    10/9/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 12-16
    10/8/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    10/8/15--Thornberry Previews Afghanistan Hearing
    10/7/15--Thornberry on NDAA Passage
    10/7/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    10/6/15--Thornberry To Army: Postpone Martland Discharge
    10/6/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 5-9
    10/5/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 5-9
    10/1/15--Defense Bill Passes 270-156
    10/1/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    September 2015:
    9/30/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 5-9
    9/30/15--Cyber Week Readout
    9/30/15--Thornberry on Defense Bill Veto Threat
    9/30/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
    9/29/15--Thornberry Releases NDAA Conference Report
    9/29/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    9/29/15--House/Senate Armed Services Leaders To Discuss 
NDAA
    9/28/15--Thornberry on Kunduz
    9/22/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 28--October 2
    9/18/15--Wilson Previews Roundtable
    9/11/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 14-18
    9/11/15--Thornberry On 9/11 Anniversary
    9/10/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    9/10/15--Thornberry Availability On Iran
    9/10/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    9/9/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    9/7/15--Thornberry Returns from Afghanistan
    9/4/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
    9/2/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 7-11
    July 2015:
    7/30/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: August 3--September 4
    7/29/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
    7/21/15--Thornberry Calls On President To Lower Flags
    7/17/15--Armed Services Chairmen Advancing Legislation to 
Protect Troops at U.S. Military Facilities
    7/16/15--Thornberry On Murder Of Four Marines
    7/16/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 20-24
    7/14/15--Thornberry on Iran Announcement
    7/10/15--In Wake Of Breach Thornberry To Examine Force 
Protection And Security Clearance Process
    7/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 13-17
    7/9/15--Thornberry on United Kingdom's Commitment to 
National Defense
    7/8/15--Thornberry on Army Force Reductions
    7/6/15--Thornberry on President's ISIL Update
    7/3/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 6-11
    7/1/15--Thornberry on Iran Nuclear Agreement
    June 2015:
    6/26/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 29-July 3
    6/26/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    6/25/15--NDAA Conference Begins
    6/25/15--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
    6/25/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
    6/24/15--Opening Remarks Of Chairman Wilson
    6/22/15--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: June 22-26
    6/22/15--Thornberry To Deliver Remarks on Russia To The 
Atlantic Council
    6/19/15--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: June 22-26
    6/19/15--Thornberry on Senate Passage of FY16 NDAA
    6/17/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    6/16/15--Thornberry Previews Hearing on U.S. Policy & 
Strategy in the Middle East
    6/15/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
    6/12/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 15-19
    6/11/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    6/10/15--READOUT: Wilson & Langevin Host Briefing on DoD's 
Transfer of Live Anthrax
    6/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 15-19
    6/10/15--Thornberry on Additional U.S. Forces in Iraq
    6/10/15--Thornberry/Wilson/Langevin Brief On Camera 
Availability Before Anthrax Briefing
    6/8/15--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
    6/4/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 8-12
    6/3/15--Thornberry to Reid: Meeting Troops' Needs Is Never 
A Waste Of Time
    6/2/15--Readout: Thornberry Comments on CJCS Roundtable 
with Armed Services Committee
    6/2/15--Readout: Thornberry Comments on CJCS Roundtable 
with Armed Services Committee
    6/2/15--Readout: Thornberry Comments on CJCS Roundtable 
with Armed Services Committee
    May 2015:
    5/28/15--Thornberry/Hartzler on Anniversary of Taliban 5 
Transfer
    5/28/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 1-5
    5/20/15--Thornberry on President's Address to Coast Guard 
Grads
    5/18/15--Thornberry & Smith Statement on Iraq Train & Equip 
Language in NDAA
    5/15/15--House Passes NDAA
    5/12/15--H.R. 1735 FY16 NDAA Comes to the House Floor
    5/11/15--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
    5/5/15--Thornberry on General Dunford
    April 2015:
    4/30/15--H.R. 1735 Passes House Armed Services Committee
    4/29/15--Thornberry on FY16 NDAA Markup
    4/27/15--Thornberry Releases Defense Authorization Act
    4/23/15--Thornberry on Weinstein & Lo Porto
    4/23/15--UPDATE: FY16 NDAA Subcommittee Markup Schedule
    4/23/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Heck
    4/23/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    4/22/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Wittman
    4/22/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
    4/22/15--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Markup Release
    4/22/15--Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces 
Markup Release
    4/22/15--Subcommittee on Military Personnel Markup Release
    4/22/15--Subcommittee on Tactical Air & Land Markup Release
    4/21/15--Subcommittee on Readiness Markup
    4/21/15--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & Capabilities 
Markup
    4/21/15--FY16 NDAA Subcommittee Markup Press Background 
Briefings
    4/20/15--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
    4/17/15--HASC to Distribute NDAA Amendments by Email
    4/15/15--Chairman Rogers' Opening Statement
    4/15/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    4/15/15--HASC Staff Host OTR Session on NDAA Markup 
Logistics
    4/14/15--Thornberry, Smith Begin FY 2016 Defense Process
    4/14/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Turner
    4/14/15--UPDATE: FY16 NDAA Markup Schedule
    4/10/15--Thornberry on Major General Post
    4/8/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: April 13-17
    4/2/15--Thornberry Releases the FY16 NDAA Markup Schedule
    March 2015:
    3/31/15--Thornberry on Egypt
    3/26/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 30-April 10
    3/26/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
    3/26/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Turner
    3/26/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Wittman
    3/25/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
    3/25/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
    3/25/15--Thornberry on Bergdahl
    3/25/15--Thornberry/Smith Introduce DOD Acquisition Reform 
Bill
    3/25/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Heck
    3/24/15--Thornberry Welcomes Rep. Russell
    3/24/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers'
    3/24/15--Thornberry on Afghanistan
    3/23/15--Chairman Thornberry Unveils Defense Reform 
Proposal
    3/20/15--Thornberry to Unveil Reform Proposal at CSIS
    3/19/15--Armed Services Staff Background Briefing on 
Acquisition Reform
    3/18/15--Thornberry Announces Selection for National 
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Army
    3/18/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 23-27
    3/18/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
    3/18/15--Chairman Forbes' Opening Statement
    3/17/15--Chairman Rogers' Opening Statement
    3/16/15--Thornberry Previews Hearing on The Fiscal Year 
2016 National Defense Authorization Budget
    3/13/15--Media Alert: Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle 
Monday
    3/12/15--HASC Hearing Schedule Update: March 17
    3/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 16-20
    3/4/15--Chairman Wittman's Opening Statement
    3/4/15--Thursday March 5 Hearing Postponed
    3/4/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
    3/4/15--Chairman Forbes' Opening Statement
    February 2015:
    2/27/15--Thornberry Releases Budget Views & Estimates 
Letter
    2/25/15--Chairman Thornberry Previews Tomorrow's AUMF 
Hearing
    2/25/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
    2/25/15--Chairman Forbes' Opening Statement
    2/24/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 2-6
    2/24/15--Thornberry Previews Hearing on Emerging Security 
Challenges in Europe
    2/19/15--HASC Hearing Announcement: AUMF
    2/4/15--Thornberry Names Armed Services Vice Chairs
    2/2/15--Thornberry on President's Budget Request
    January 2015:
    1/28/15--Thornberry, Smith Announce Final Subcommittee 
Rosters
    1/21/15--READOUT: Thornberry Leads Roundtable on Islamic 
Extremism
    1/20/15--Chairman Thornberry Highlights Critical National 
Security Challenges ahead of SOTU
    1/16/15--Media Alert: Thornberry to Unveil Agenda in AEI 
Remarks
    1/15/15--Thornberry on GTMO Transfers: ``The American 
People are Right to be Concerned''
    1/7/15--Chairman Thornberry: ``America Stands With France''

                             Second Session

    December 2016:
    12/6/16--Statement by Thornberry & McCain on Defense 
Business Board Findings on Pentagon Bureaucracy
    12/2/16--House passes NDAA Conference Report 375 to 34
    12/1/16--Thornberry on Mattis Selection
    November 2016:
    11/20/16--Thornberry files FY17 NDAA Conference Report
    11/30/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: December 5-9
    11/29/16--Armed Services Staff Background Briefing on NDAA 
today
    11/22/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 28-December 2
    11/20/16--Thornberry on National Security Agency reports
    11/18/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 21-25
    11/16/16--Thornberry & Smith on passing of Mel Laird
    11/10/16--Thornberry on Additional Funding Request
    11/10/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 14-18
    11/1/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 1-11
    October 2016:
    10/27/16--Thornberry on Marine CH-53 Investigation
    10/26/16--House Armed Services Committee Leaders on 
suspending collection of bonuses
    10/19/16--Thornberry, Nunes warn of Russian Nuke Violations
    10/4/16--Thornberry on alarming developments with New Start 
Treaty
    September 2016:
    9/30/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: October
    9/29/16--Thornberry on Iraq Troop Deployments
    9/28/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    9/28/16--National Security Council on Relationship With 
China: It's Complicated, Not a Competition
    9/27/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    9/22/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: September 19-23
    9/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    9/21/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 26-30
    9/15/16--Thornberry on Walorski Bill to Stop GTMO Transfers
    9/14/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 19-23
    9/9/16--Thornberry on North Korea Nuclear Test
    9/9/16--In Remembrance of September 11, 2001
    9/8/16--Govt Watchdog Sounds Alarm on Readiness
    9/8/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    9/8/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 12-16
    9/7/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    9/6/16--Thornberry: The American People/Our Troops Deserve 
Better
    9/1/16--Thornberry Denounces President's Decision on Troop 
Pay
    August 2016:
    8/31/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 5-9
    8/31/16--Thornberry Praises Army Rapid Capabilities office
    8/26/16--GTMO to Close?
    8/11/16--Congressional Task Force on Centcom Releases 
Initial Report
    8/1/16--Thornberry Statement on Khizr Khan Speech/Military 
Service
    July 2016:
    7/22/16--Thornberry to Host ``off Camera'' Press Round 
Table Monday
    7/20/16--Thornberry Remembers Representative Takai
    7/15/16--HASC Hearing Schedule--July-August
    7/14/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    7/14/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    7/14/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: July 10-16
    7/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
    7/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    7/13/16--Rogers Urges President to Stay the Course on 
Nuclear Modernization
    7/12/16--Congress to Commissary Customers: We Have Your 
Back
    7/12/16--Thornberry on South China Sea Ruling
    7/11/16--Thornberry on White House Sending More Troops to 
Iraq
    7/8/16--Thornberry on Secdef Afghanistan Comments
    7/8/16--Thornberry on Thaad In South Korea
    7/8/16--NDAA Goes to Conference
    7/7/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    7/6/16--Thornberry on President's New Afghanistan Troop 
Caps
    7/6/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    7/5/16--Thornberry to Discuss FY17 NDAA at Heritage
    June 2016:
    6/30/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: July 4-8
    6/30/16--Chairman Thornberry on Pentagon Transgender Policy 
Change
    6/29/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 4-8
    6/24/16--Thornberry on Change to DOD Transgender Policy
    6/21/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 27-July 1
    6/20/16--Military Aircraft Accidents Costing Lives
    6/15/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 20-24
    6/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
    6/13/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 13-18
    6/12/16--Thornberry Statement on Orlando Attack
    6/9/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 13-17
    6/3/16--Thornberry Comments on Recent Military Casualties
    6/2/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 6-10
    May 2016:
    5/26/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    5/25/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 30-June 3
    5/25/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    5/20/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: May 23-27
    5/18/16--Defense Bill Passes the House
    5/18/16--The Importance of Replacing Worn Out Equipment
    5/17/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 23-27
    5/17/16--``The Bill Payer For a Lack of Readiness Is...''
    5/16/16--Defense Bill Comes to the House Floor
    5/16/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 16-20
    5/11/16--Thornberry Introduces Major Reforms to National 
Security Council
    5/11/16--`They Were For It Before They Were Against It'
    5/11/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
    5/5/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 9-13
    5/3/16--U.S. Air Power Needs an F-22 Upgrade
    5/3/16--Marine Corps Times: Fighter Squadrons Don't Have 
Enough Working Aircraft
    5/2/16--Gutting Readiness is What's Objectionable
    5/2/16--The Hill: Experts Warn Weapons Gap Is Shrinking 
Between US, Russia and China
    April 2016:
    4/28/16--Thornberry on Committee Passage of NDAA
    4/27/16--Opening Statement of Chairman Thornberry
    4/25/16--Thornberry Releases FY17 NDAA
    4/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    4/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    4/21/16--FY17 NDAA Full Committee Markup
    4/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    4/20/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    4/20/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    4/20/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    4/19/16--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
    4/19/16--Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces
    4/19/16--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & Capabilities
    4/19/16--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
    4/19/16--Subcommittee on Tactical Air & Land Forces
    4/19/16--Subcommittee on Readiness
    4/18/16--Subcommittee Markup Press Briefings
    4/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
    4/15/16--Thornberry on Dod Brac Report
    4/14/16--Subcommittee Markup Press Briefings
    4/14/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    4/14/16--HASC Markup Schedule
    4/13/16--HASC to Distribute NDAA Amendments By Email
    4/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    4/12/16--Thornberry, Smith Begin FY17 National Defense 
Authorization Process
    4/11/16--HASC Staff Host OTR Session on NDAA Markup 
Logistics
    4/7/16--HASC Hearing Schedule April 11-15
    March 2016:
    3/24/16--HASC Hearing Schedule
    3/24/16--Thornberry Comments on Administration's ISIL 
Strategy
    3/23/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    3/22/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    3/22/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    3/22/16--Chairman Thornberry's Opening Remarks
    3/17/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    3/16/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    3/16/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    3/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    3/15/16--Thornberry Releases Acquisition Reform Bill
    3/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    3/15/16--HASC Hearing Schedule
    3/14/16--Thornberry Discusses Defense Acquisition Reform 
Proposals at Brookings
    3/14/16--HASC Staff to Background Press on Acquisition 
Reform
    3/13/16--Thornberry Discusses Defense Acquisition Reform 
Proposals at Brookings
    3/11/16--HASC Staff to Background Press on Acquisition 
Reform
    3/11/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 14-18
    3/10/16--Thornberry on Iran Missile Tests
    3/9/16--UPDATE: HASC Hearing Schedule: March 14-18
    3/8/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 14-18
    3/3/16--HASC Hearing Schedule
    3/3/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Today
    3/3/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    3/2/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Thursday
    3/2/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    3/2/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Thursday
    3/2/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    3/1/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    3/1/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    February 2016:
    2/26/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    2/26/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    2/25/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
    2/24/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    2/24/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    2/24/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    2/24/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 29-March 4
    2/23/16--Thornberry Comments on White House's Plan to Close 
GTMO
    2/17/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 22-26
    2/16/16--White House Fails to Deliver Strategy to Counter 
Islamic Extremism
    2/12/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
    2/12/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    2/11/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    2/11/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 15-19
    2/10/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    2/10/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
    2/9/16--Thornberry Comments on DOD Budget Proposal
    2/8/16--Thornberry Sends Views & Estimates to The Budget 
Committee
    2/7/16--Thornberry Statement on North Korean Missile Launch
    2/4/16--Thornberry Reminds White House of Statutory 
Requirements for GTMO Report
    2/3/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 8-12
    2/3/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
    2/3/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    2/2/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
    2/2/16--Thornberry on Secretary Carter's FY17 Budget 
Preview
    January 2016:
    1/29/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Monday
    1/25/16--UPDATE: HASC Hearing Schedule: January 25-29
    1/14/16--Thornberry on release of 10 more GTMO detainees
    1/14/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 18-22
    1/13/16--Thornberry's Remarks As Prepared For Delivery
    1/13/16--Thornberry Discusses Strength & Agility In 
National Security Speech
    1/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
    1/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    1/12/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
    1/12/16--Thornberry to Deliver National Security Speech at 
National Press Club
    1/8/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
    1/7/16--Thornberry to Deliver National Security Speech at 
National Press Club
    1/7/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
    1/6/16--Thornberry on North Korea Nuke Test
    1/5/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 11-15
    1/5/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 4-8
    1/5/16--Thornberry to Deliver National Security Speech at 
National Press Club

                                  [all]