Title XVII of the Carl Levin and Howard P. "Buck" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 ( P.L. 113-291 ) established the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA) to conduct a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army (see the Appendix ). The NCFA reported its findings to Congress and the Administration on January 28, 2016, and made a number of recommendations that may or may not be acted upon. The NCFA is likely to participate in congressional briefings and/or hearings detailing the NCFA's recommendations. Some have suggested the historical post-war practice of reducing defense budgets, in part, contributed to the perceived need for a commission to address proposed changes to the Army. One defense analyst characterized this situation, noting: The decline in the size of the active-duty force caused by reduced budgets has sparked tension among the Active, Guard, and Reserve components over their respective missions and corresponding resources. Lacking the ability to fund the existing arrangement of Active, Reserve, and Guard forces adequately, service chiefs have had to reallocate funding, forcing reconsideration of what each component needs to have and for what purpose. On May 6, 2014, Senators Patrick Leahy and Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to establish an NCFA and highlighted the concerns of some Members: Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday Senator GRAHAM and I introduced a bill to establish a National Commission on the Future of the Army, an independent panel that will bear the responsibility of analyzing some major changes to the U.S. Army that were proposed in the President's budget. The Army's budget for Fiscal Year 2015 sets a path toward major, irreversible changes to Army capacity and capability, particularly in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves that cannot be ignored by the Congress. Senator GRAHAM, my fellow co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, has said repeatedly that these changes fundamentally alter what it means for the National Guard to be a combat reserve of the Army. The changes would also render the Nation's operational reserve insufficient in its ability to retain gains in experience and readiness that the reserve has achieved over a decade of continuous deployment. Most dramatically, these changes would transfer all of the National Guard's AH–64 Apaches to the active component, leaving the Nation without any combat reserves for one of the aircraft most essential to ground operations. The decision to establish an NCFA was also likely influenced by two previous commissions that also addressed contemporary military issues—the 2014 National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force and the 2015 Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. Both commissions provided a number of recommendations that have been either adopted by the Air Force or, in the case of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, enacted through legislation or policy changes and applicable to all U.S. servicemembers. Some say the Army's 2013 Aviation Restructuring Initiative (ARI) significantly influenced the decision to establish the NCFA. An April 27, 2015, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Force Structure: Army's Analyses of Aviation Alternatives , describes the ARI: In October 2013, the Army Chief of Staff approved a force-structure proposal—called the Army Aviation Restructuring Initiative—that would cut approximately 10,700 military positions from the Army's end strength by eliminating active-component and reserve-component [aviation] units from the Army's force structure. The proposal would enable the Army to divest nearly 800 older and less-capable helicopters [OH-58D Kiowa Warrior] from the force, and rebalance combat capabilities across the regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. The Army would accomplish this by removing all AH-64 Apache helicopters from the reserve component and increasing the number of AH-64 Apaches in the active component. According to the Army, once implemented the aviation restructuring initiative would save roughly $1 billion annually. GAO further noted: The National Guard Bureau, although agreeing with many aspects of the Army's proposal, has opposed the effort to remove the AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Army National Guard. Bureau officials said that in their view the removal of these helicopters will degrade the Army National Guard's role as a combat reserve; establish a precedent for removing other combat capabilities from the Army National Guard; and disrupt Army National Guard units and force structure across 20 states. The disagreement between the Army and the National Guard Bureau over the ARI was visible to the public, the Administration, and Congress and reportedly became acrimonious. It is possible this lack of consensus between the Army and National Guard and their perceived contentious relationship suggested a need for an independent body to examine the ARI as well as other Active and Reserve Component force structure issues. On January 28, 2016, the NCFA released its final report. As part of the report, the NCFA produced a classified appendix (see topic outline and access instructions in Appendix E of the report), which is available to those with the appropriate clearance and a "need to know." The 208-page report contained 63 recommendations for the Nation, the President, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands, the Army, and Army Service Component Commands, and these recommendations are summarized in Appendix B of the report. The commission's major findings and recommendations are summarized below: An Army of 980,000 soldiers (Regular Army of 450,000; Army National Guard of 335,000; and an Army Reserve of 195,000) is the minimally sufficient force to meet current and anticipated missions with an acceptable level of risk. This finding is consistent with the endstrength and force mix minimums established by Army leadership in 2014. The Army should retain an 11 th Regular Army Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) instead of drawing down to 10 CABs as proposed under the ARI. This 11 th CAB should be forward stationed in South Korea. The commission believes there is significant risk in terms of aviation safety given terrain and aviation mission complexities for rotational aviation forces in Korea. Forward stationing of this CAB in South Korea would provide aircrew greater familiarity with the demanding environment and enhance interoperability with South Korean allies. The Army should forward station an Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) in Europe. While the Army is currently rotating an ABCT through Europe, both the changing European security environment, as well as the advantages of deploying from Europe if the ABCT is required for a Middle Eastern contingency, support the permanent stationing of an ABCT in Europe. Based on its analysis, the commission believes little additional staffing would be required to accommodate the forward stationed ABCT. The commission noted a significant shortfall in Army air defense capability as a result of post-Cold War changes in force structure. Noting the security situations in the Ukraine and Syria, concern was expressed that no short-range air defense battalions were in the Regular Army and a sizeable percentage of the National Guard's short-range air defense capability was devoted to protecting the National Capital Region, leaving little spare capacity for contingency operations. The commission also found shortfalls in tactical mobility; missile defense; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense—particularly as it relates to homeland defense; field artillery; fuel distribution; water purification; Army watercraft; and military police. If the Army's 980,000 soldier strength cannot be increased to address the creation of units to address the aforementioned shortfalls, the Army should consider eliminating two Regular Army Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) to free up spaces to create these units. While such an action might provide the needed spaces, equipping these units would likely require the dedication of significant budgetary resources unless equipment already exists within the Army's inventory. Regarding the Army's proposed Aviation Restructuring Initiative (ARI), the commission recommends the Army maintain 24 manned AH-64 Apache battalions—20 in the Regular Army and 4 in the National Guard. The Regular Army Apache battalions would be equipped with 24 AH-64s, and the National Guard battalions would have 18 Apache helicopters and would need to cross level helicopters between units prior to deploying. To help decrease the costs to the commission's recommendation, only 2 UH-60 Black Hawk transport helicopter battalions would be added to the National Guard as opposed to the 4 Black Hawk battalions under the Army's ARI proposal. As previously noted, Title XVII of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 113-291 ) established the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA). It is detailed in the Appendix , but the commission's charter, structure, and operations are summarized in the following sections. Title XVII spells out the NCFA's duties as follows: Conducting a comprehensive study of the structure of the Army as well as policy assumptions related to the size and force mixture of the Army in order to: Make an assessment of the size and force mixture of the Active Component (AC) and Reserve Components (RC); and Make recommendations on modifications (if any) to the Army's structure as it relates to the Army's current and anticipated mission requirements. These recommendations must be at acceptable levels of national risk and in a manner consistent with both available resources and anticipated future resources. Conducting a study of the transfer of Army National Guard AH-64 Apache aircraft from the Army National Guard to the Regular Army.