[House Report 106-1043]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 605
106th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 106-1043
REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006 WASHINGTON : 2001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona IKE SKELTON, Missouri
DUNCAN HUNTER, California NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
HERBERT H. BATEMAN,\1\ Virginia Carolina
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
STEVE BUYER, Indiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JAMES TALENT, Missouri PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California TOM ALLEN, Maine
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas JIM TURNER, Texas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ADAM SMITH, Washington
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
Carolina CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MARY BONO, California MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California
DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
HEATHER WILSON,\2\ New Mexico
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
Ashley Godwin, Legislative Operations Clerk
----------
\1\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
\2\ Ms. Wilson was elected to the Committee October 3, 2000.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to House Rule XI 1.(d), there
is transmitted herewith the report of activities of the
Committee on Armed Services for the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services--106th Congress... 1
Background................................................... 1
Constitutional Powers and Duties............................. 2
House Rules on Jurisdiction.................................. 3
Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight............ 3
Committee Rules.................................................. 4
Rules Governing Procedure.................................... 4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services--106th Congress... 13
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services--106th Congress. 14
Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee........... 14
Military Personnel Subcommittee.............................. 14
Military Procurement Subcommittee............................ 15
Military Readiness Subcommittee.............................. 15
Military Research and Development Subcommittee............... 16
Full Committee Panels............................................ 17
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation.... 17
Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine............... 17
Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy
Reorganization............................................. 18
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism......................... 18
Committee Staff.................................................. 19
Committee Meetings............................................... 21
Legislative Actions.............................................. 21
Legislation Enacted Into Law................................. 21
Public Law 106-38 (H.R. 4)............................... 21
Public Law 106-65 (S. 1059).............................. 21
Public Law 106-120 (H.R. 1555)........................... 24
Public Law 106-195 (H.J. Res. 86)........................ 25
Public Law 106-227 (H.J. Res. 101)....................... 25
Public Law 106-398 (H.R. 4205)........................... 25
Public Law 106-419 (S. 1402)............................. 28
Public Law 106-446 (H.R. 5314)........................... 28
Legislation Reported But Not Enacted......................... 29
H.Res. 534............................................... 29
H.R. 850................................................. 29
H.R. 3383................................................ 29
H.R. 3906................................................ 30
H.R. 4446................................................ 30
H.R. 4737................................................ 31
Oversight Activities............................................. 33
Summary of Oversight Plan........................................ 33
Actions and Recommendations...................................... 33
Additional Oversight Activities.................................. 38
Other Activities of the Full Committee........................... 47
Budget Activity.............................................. 47
Full Committee Hearings...................................... 47
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation.... 55
Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine............... 55
Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy
Reorganization............................................. 56
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism......................... 57
Other Activities of Subcommittees................................ 59
Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee........... 59
Military Personnel Subcommittee.............................. 60
Military Procurement Subcommittee............................ 60
Military Readiness Subcommittee.............................. 61
Military Research and Development Subcommittee............... 62
Publications..................................................... 65
Committee Prints of Laws Relating to National Defense........ 65
Committee Prints............................................. 65
Published Proceedings........................................ 65
House Reports................................................ 69
Public Laws.................................................. 71
Press Releases................................................... 73
Union Calendar No. 605
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-1043
======================================================================
REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE
106TH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Spence, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
ON
POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--106TH CONGRESS
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 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 diminished.
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 legislation 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.
Constitutional Powers and Duties
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8, of the
Constitution, which provides, among other things, that the
Congress shall have power to:
Raise and support armies;
Provide and maintain a navy;
Make rules for the government and regulation of the
land and naval forces;
Provide for calling forth the militia;
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;
Exercise exclusive legislation * * * over all places
purchased * * * for the erection of forts, magazines,
arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
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 that rule, all bills, resolutions,
and other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction
of any standing 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; 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 the 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.
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 military dependents' education.
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.
H. Res. 101, approved by the House on March 23, 1999,
provided funds for oversight responsibilities to be conducted
in the 106th Congress, pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of
the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to general
oversight responsibilities), clause 3(g) 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
20, 1999, and adopted the following rules governing procedure
and rules for investigative hearings conducted by
subcommittees.
(H.A.S.C. No. 106-1)
Rules Governing Procedure
RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES
The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of
the Committee on Armed Services (hereafter referred to in these
rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as
applicable.
rule 2. full committee meeting date
(a) The Committee shall meet every Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.,
and at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of the
Committee (hereafter referred to in these rules 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 Tuesday 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 and the other subcommittee chairmen with a view toward
avoiding simultaneous scheduling of committee and subcommittee
meetings or hearings wherever possible.
RULE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES
The Committee shall be organized to consist of five
standing subcommittees with the following jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities:
military construction; real estate acquisitions and disposals;
housing and support; base closure; and related legislative
oversight.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel: military forces and
authorized strengths; integration of active and reserve
components; military personnel policy; compensation and other
benefits; and related legislative oversight.
Subcommittee on Military Procurement: the annual
authorization for procurement of military weapon systems and
components thereof, including full scale development and
systems transition; military application of nuclear energy; and
related legislative oversight.
Subcommittee on Military Readiness: the annual
authorization for operation and maintenance; the readiness and
preparedness requirements of the defense establishment; and
related legislative oversight.
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development: the
annual authorization for military research and development and
related legislative oversight.
RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS
(a) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee
drawn from 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.
(b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for
more than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the
expiration of six months, be reappointed by the Chairman.
(c) No panel so appointed shall have legislative
jurisdiction.
RULE 6. REFERENCE OF LEGISLATION AND SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
(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 hearing only when
called by the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as
appropriate, or by a majority of those present and voting.
(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
3 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.
rule 7. public announcement of hearings and meetings
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 or panel shall make public announcement of the
date, place, and subject matter of any committee or
subcommittee hearing at least one week before the commencement
of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the Committee or of
any subcommittee or panel, with the concurrence of the ranking
minority member of the Committee or of any subcommittee or
panel, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing
sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee or panel 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 and promptly entered into the committee scheduling
service of the House Information Resources.
rule 8. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings
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 a subcommittee shall be open to the public except
when the Committee or subcommittee, 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 closed to the public 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 less than two members of the Committee or
subcommittee, 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
close, the vote must be by record vote and in open session,
there being a majority of the Committee or subcommittee
present.
(b) Whenever it is asserted that the evidence or testimony
at a hearing or meeting may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person, and 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 closed session, if by a
majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no
less 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 less than two
members of the Committee or subcommittee, may also vote to
close the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose 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, a member of that member's personal
staff with Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings of
the Committee, or that member's subcommittee(s) which have been
closed under the provisions of rule 9(a) above for national
security purposes for the taking of testimony: Provided, That
such staff member's attendance at such hearings is subject to
the approval of the Committee or subcommittee as dictated by
national security requirements at the time: Provided further,
That this paragraph addresses hearings only and not briefings
or meetings held under the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
rule; and Provided further, That the attainment of any security
clearances involved is the responsibility of individual
members.
(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no Member 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 by the same
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the
public: Provided, however, That the Committee or the
subcommittee may by the same procedure vote to close up to 5
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; and
(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas.
(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) The time any one member may address the Committee or
subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration shall
not exceed 5 minutes and then only when the member has
beenrecognized 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 to
exceed 5 minutes to address the Committee or subcommittee on behalf of
an amendment which the member has offered to any pending bill or
resolution. The 5 minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee or subcommittee.
(b) Members present at a hearing of the Committee or
subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened will be
recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as
appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving
subsequently will 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 the majority.
(c) No person other than Members of Congress and committee
staff may be seated in or behind the dais area during
Committee, subcommittee or panel hearings and meetings.
rule 12. subpoena authority
(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 as it deems
necessary. The Chairman of the Committee, or any member
designated by the Chairman, may administer oaths to any
witness.
(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full
Committee Chairman, 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 Chairman.
(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.
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 at least 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 security information bearing a
classification of secret or higher, the statement shall be made
available in the Committee rooms to all members of the
Committee or subcommittee at least 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 a quorum of the Committee or
subcommittee, as appropriate.
(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 his or her argument.
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 they have been recognized by
the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that
purpose.
(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire
shall have not to exceed 5 minutes to interrogate each witness
until such time as each member has had an opportunity to
interrogate such witness; thereafter, additional rounds for
questioning witnesses by members are discretionary with 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 and mark-ups conducted by
the Committee or a subcommittee which are decided by the
Chairman to be officially published will be published in
verbatim form, with the material requested for the record
inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record,
as appropriate. Any requests to correct any errors, other than
those in transcription, or disputed errors in transcription,
will be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where
the change is requested will be footnoted.
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 may be had 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 may 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
thatmember shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
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, that member shall be entitled to not less
than 2 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays) in which to file such views, in writing and signed by
that member, with the staff director of the Committee. 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.
RULE 19. POINTS OF ORDER
No point of order shall lie with respect to any measure
reported by the Committee or any subcommittee on the ground
that hearings on such measure were not conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the rules of the Committee; except that
a point of order on that ground may be made by any member of
the Committee or subcommittee which reported the measure if, in
the Committee or subcommittee, such point of order was (a)
timely made and (b) improperly overruled or not properly
considered.
RULE 20. 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. Information so available for public inspection
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 21. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security
information bearing a classification of secret or higher which
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be
given appropriate safekeeping.
(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any national security information received
classified as secret or higher. Such procedures shall, however,
ensure access to this information by any member of the
Committee or any other Member of the House of Representatives
who has requested the opportunity to review such material.
RULE 22. COMMITTEE STAFFING
The staffing of the Committee and the standing
subcommittees shall be subject to the rules of the House of
Representatives.
RULE 23. 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 24. INVESTIGATIVE HEARING PROCEDURES
Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--106TH CONGRESS
Pursuant to H. Res. 6, election of majority members, and H.
Res. 7, election of minority members (both adopted January 16,
1999), the following members served on the Committee on Armed
Services in the 106th Congress:
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina,
Chairman
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Ranking MemberBOB STUMP, Arizona, Vice Chairman
NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia \1\
OWEN PICKETT, Virginia JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
LANE EVANS, Illinois CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts STEVE BUYER, Indiana
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
JIM TURNER, Texas California
ADAM SMITH, Washington J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey JIM RYUN, Kansas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana BOB RILEY, Alabama
MIKE THOMPSON, California JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut MARY BONO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL, California
DON SHERWOOD, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico \2\
----------
\1\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
\2\ Ms. Wilson was elected to the committee on October 3, 2000,
pursuant to H. Res. 608.
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 106TH CONGRESS
The following subcommittees were established at the
organizational meeting of the Committee on Armed Services on
January 20, 1999:
Military Installations and Facilities
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military
construction; real estate acquisitions and disposals; housing
and support; base closure; and related legislative oversight.
Mr. HEFLEY, Chairman
Mr. TAYLOR, Ranking Member Mrs. FOWLER
Mr. ORTIZ Mr. McHUGH
Mr. ABERCROMBIE Mr. McKEON
Mr. UNDERWOOD Mr. HOSTETTLER
Mr. REYES Mr. HILLEARY, Vice Chairman
Mr. SNYDER Mr. SCARBOROUGH
Mr. BRADY Mr. STUMP
Mr. THOMPSON Mr. SAXTON
Mr. BUYER
Military Personnel
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military forces
and authorized strengths; integration of active and reserve
components; military personnel policy; compensation and other
benefits; and related legislative oversight.
Mr. BUYER, Chairman
Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. MEEHAN Mr. WATTS
Mr. KENNEDY Mr. THORNBERRY
Ms. SANCHEZ Mr. GRAHAM, Vice Chairman
Ms. McKINNEY Mr. RYUN
Ms. TAUSCHER Mrs. BONO
Mr. THOMPSON Mr. PITTS
Mr. LARSON Mr. HAYES
Mr. KUYKENDALL
Military Procurement
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4-Annual
authorization for procurement of military weapon systems and
components thereof, including full-scale development and
systems transition; military application of nuclear energy; and
related legislative oversight.
Mr. HUNTER, Chairman
Mr. SISISKY, Ranking Member Mr. SPENCE
Mr. SKELTON Mr. STUMP
Mr. SPRATT Mr. HANSEN
Mr. EVANS Mr. SAXTON
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH Mr. TALENT
Mr. ALLEN Mr. EVERETT
Mr. TURNER Mr. WATTS
Mr. SMITH Mr. THORNBERRY, Vice Chairman
Mr. MALONEY Mr. GRAHAM
Mr. McINTYRE Mr. RYUN
Ms. McKINNEY Mr. GIBBONS
Ms. TAUSCHER Mrs. BONO
Mr. BRADY Mr. PITTS
Mr. HAYES
Military Readiness
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4-Annual
authorization for operation and maintenance; the readiness and
preparedness requirements of the defense establishment; and
related legislative oversight.
Mr. BATEMAN, Chairman \1\
Mr. ORTIZ, Ranking Member Mr. CHAMBLISS
Mr. SISISKY Mr. JONES, Vice Chairman
Mr. SPRATT Mr. RILEY
Mr. PICKETT Mr. HUNTER
Mr. UNDERWOOD Mr. HANSEN
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH Mr. WELDON
Mr. SMITH Mrs. FOWLER
Mr. MALONEY Mr. TALENT
Mr. McINTYRE Mr. EVERETT
Mr. RODRIGUEZ Mr. GIBBONS
Mr. SHERWOOD
----------
\1\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
Military Research and Development
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4-Annual
authorization for military research and development and related
legislative oversight.
Mr. WELDON, Chairman
Mr. PICKETT, Ranking Member Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. TAYLOR Mr. KUYKENDALL
Mr. MEEHAN Mr. SHERWOOD
Mr. KENNEDY Mr. KASICH
Mr. REYES Mr. BATEMAN \1\
Mr. ALLEN Mr. HEFLEY
Mr. SNYDER Mr. McHUGH
Mr. TURNER Mr. McKEON
Ms. SANCHEZ Mr. HOSTETTLER, Vice Chairman
Mr. RODRIGUEZ Mr. CHAMBLISS
Mr. ANDREWS Mr. HILLEARY
Mr. HILL Mr. SCARBOROUGH
Mr. LARSON Mr. JONES
Mr. RILEY
----------
\1\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
FULL COMMITTEE PANELS
The following full committee panels were appointed as
follows:
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation
February 5, 1999
Purpose--Oversight responsibility for all aspects of
nonappropriated fund activities, including appropriated funding
in support of those activities, within the Department of
Defense, including commissaries, exchanges, clubs and related
activities.
Mr. McHUGH, Chairman
Mr. MEEHAN, Ranking Member Mr. STUMP
Mr. SISISKY Mr. BATEMAN \1\
Mr. ORTIZ Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. PICKETT Mr. WATTS
Mr. UNDERWOOD Mr. CHAMBLISS
Mr. REYES Mr. SCARBOROUGH
Mr. ANDREWS Mr. JONES
(vacancy) Mr. RILEY, Vice Chairman
Mr. HAYES
Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine
February 5, 1999
Purpose--Oversight responsibility for all issues, including
funding, related to the national security aspects of the
Merchant Marine.
Mr. BATEMAN, Chairman \2\
Mr. UNDERWOOD, Ranking Member Mr. HUNTER
Mr. TAYLOR Mr. WELDON
Mr. ABERCROMBIE Mr. SAXTON
Mr. ALLEN Mr. SCARBOROUGH
Mr. MALONEY Mr. JONES
Mr. KUYKENDALL, Vice Chairman
----------
\1\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
\2\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization
October 8, 1999
Purpose--Oversight responsibility for the implementation of
the Department of Energy reorganization provisions contained in
title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
Mr. THORNBERRY, Chairman
Ms. TAUSCHER, Ranking Member Mr. HUNTER
Mr. SISISKY Mr. GRAHAM
Mr. SPRATT Mr. GIBBONS
Mr. SKELTON, Ex Officio Mr. RYUN
Mr. SPENCE, Ex Officio
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism
March 2, 2000
Purpose--Oversight responsibility for assessing the nature
of the terrorist threat facing U.S. armed forces and national
security interests, including the threat of terrorism involving
weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. SAXTON, Chairman
Mr. SNYDER, Ranking Member Mr. HUNTER
Mr. TAYLOR Mr. WELDON
Mr. MALONEY Mr. BATEMAN \1\
Mr. McINTYRE Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. ANDREWS Mr. CHAMBLISS
Mr. HILL Mr. GIBBONS
Mr. REYES Mr. HAYES
Mr. SKELTON, Ex Officio Mr. PITTS
Mr. SPENCE, Ex Officio
(vacancy)
----------
\1\ Mr. Bateman died September 11, 2000.
COMMITTEE STAFF
By committee resolution adopted at the organizational
meeting on January 20, 1999, or by authority of the Chairman,
the following persons were appointed to the staff of the
committee during the 106th Congress:
Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
(resigned March 2, 2000)
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
Philip W. Grone, Deputy Staff
Director
Rita D. Thompson, Professional
Staff Member
Brenda J. Wright, Professional
Staff Member
Kathleen A. Lipovac, Professional
Staff Member
Frank A. Barnes, Staff Assistant
Betty B. Gray, Staff Assistant
Peggy Cosseboom, Staff Assistant
Peter M. Steffes, Professional
Staff Member
Ernest B. Warrington, Jr., Staff
Assistant
Diane W. Bowman, Staff Assistant
Steven A. Thompson, Professional
Staff Member
Michael R. Higgins, Professional
Staff Member
Jean D. Reed, Professional Staff
Member
George O. Withers, Professional
Staff Member
Dudley L. Tademy, Professional
Staff Member
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff
Member
Stephen P. Ansley, Professional
Staff Member
Douglas H. Necessary, Professional
Staff Member (resigned January 30,
2000)
Dionel M. Aviles, Professional
Staff Member
Peter V. Pry, Professional Staff
Member
David J. Trachtenberg,
Professional Staff Member
Thomas M. Donnelly, Professional
Staff Member (resigned September
10, 1999)
Rebecca J. Anfinson, Staff
Assistant
Maureen P. Cragin, Director of
Communications
Heather L. Hescheles, Research
Assistant (resigned April 30,
2000)
Roger M. Smith, Professional Staff
Member
B. Ryan Vaart, Professional Staff
Member
Peter J. Berry, Professional Staff
Member
Mieke Y. Eoyang, Professional
Staff Member (resigned September
1, 1999)
Robert W. Lautrup, Professional
Staff Member
Joseph F. Boessen, Professional
Staff Member
Christian P. Zur, Professional
Staff Member
John F. Sullivan, Professional
Staff Member
Nancy M. Warner, Staff Assistant
Brian R. Green, Professional Staff
Member
Noah L. Simon, Research Assistant
Michael A. Khatchadurian, Staff
Assistant (resigned January 30,
1999)
Thomas E. Hawley, Professional
Staff Member
Thomas P. Glakas, Professional
Staff Member (resigned January 30,
2000)
Michelle L. Spencer, Research
Assistant (resigned June 4, 1999)
Christopher T. Peace, Professional
Staff Member (resigned March 7,
1999)
William H. Natter, Professional
Staff Member
Monica M. Barron, Executive
Assistant to the Staff Director
(resigned March 27, 2000)
Jeremy D. Wagner, Staff Assistant
(resigned August 3, 1999)
Sheila A. Dearybury, Counsel
(resigned October 6, 1999)
Erica A. Striebel, Staff Assistant
(resigned July 14, 2000)
Ashley D. Godwin, Legislative
Operations Clerk
Elizabeth A. Sharp, Staff
Assistant
John J. Pollard III, Counsel
James M. Lariviere, Professional
Staff Member (appointed January
19, 1999)
Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., Staff
Assistant (appointed February 9,
1999)
Donna M. Mirandola, Staff
Assistant (appointed February 10,
1999; resigned December 8, 1999)
Mary Ellen Fraser, Counsel
(appointed March 8, 1999)
Edward P. Wyatt, Professional
Staff Member (appointed March 22,
1999)
Jessica R. Taylor, Staff Assistant
(appointed November 2, 1999;
resigned July 23, 2000)
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff
Member (appointed November 9,
1999)
John M. Bernards, Staff Assistant
(appointed December 1, 1999;
resigned July 7, 2000)
Lisa-Marie Wetzel, Staff Assistant
(appointed December 2, 1999;
resigned August 21, 2000)
Henry J. Schweiter, Counsel
(appointed January 4, 2000)
J.J. Gertler, Professional Staff
Member (appointed February 22,
2000)
Daniel T. Hilton, Staff Assistant
(appointed February 28, 2000)
Laura R. Haas, Executive Assistant
(appointed April 17, 2000)
Laura C. Truesdell, Staff
Assistant (appointed May 22, 2000)
Christopher A. Kim, Staff
Assistant (appointed July 10,
2000)
Eileen C. Harley, Intern
(appointed July 10, 2000; resigned
September 15, 2000)
Katherine K. Gordon, Staff
Assistant (appointed August 14,
2000)
Laura K. Hancock, Staff Assistant
(appointed November 6, 2000)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A total of 135 meetings were held by the Committee on Armed
Services, its subcommittees, and panels during the 106th
Congress. The committee held 10 joint meetings. A breakdown of
the meetings and briefings follows:
Full Committee.................................................... 39
Subcommittees:
Military Installations and Facilities......................... 10
Military Personnel............................................ 17
Military Procurement.......................................... 26
Military Readiness............................................ 20
Military Research and Development............................. 19
Full Committee Panels:
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation..... 4
Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine................ 4
Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization 3
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism.......................... 3
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Legislation Enacted Into Law
PUBLIC LAW 106-38 (H.R. 4)
To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a
national missile defense
H.R. 4, the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, declares
it the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as
technologically possible a National Missile Defense (NMD)
system capable of defending U.S. territory against limited
ballistic missile attack, with funding subject to the annual
authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of
funds for NMD, and to seek continued negotiated reductions in
Russian nuclear forces. This measure was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International
Relations. On February 25, 1999, the Committee on Armed
Services ordered H.R. 4 reported favorably to the House. The
bill passed the House on March 18, 1999, under suspension of
the rules. H.R. 4 was subsequently amended by the Senate and
passed on May 18, 1999, by unanimous consent. On May 20, 1999,
the House agreed to the Senate amendment. H.R. 4 was signed by
the President and became law on July 22, 1999.
(H. Rept. 106-39, Part I)
PUBLIC LAW 106-65 (S. 1059)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes
Public Law 106-65 authorizes funds totaling
$290,851,066,000 for national defense functions for fiscal year
2000 and provides a budget authority level of $288,811,252,000.
Division A
Division A of Public Law 106-65 authorizes funds for fiscal
year 2000 for the Department of Defense.
Subtitle A of Title I authorizes $56,067,483,000 for
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed
forces, Defense Agencies, and reserve components of the armed
forces.
Subtitles B through E of Title I establish additional
program requirements, restrictions, and limitations, authorize
transfer of, or earmark funds for, specified programs for the
armed forces, including the Army Multiple Launch Rocket System,
the Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and Arleigh Burke
class destroyer programs, the Air Force F-22 aircraft program,
and other matters such as the chemical stockpile destruction
program.
Subtitle A of Title II authorizes $36,266,537,000 for
research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces
and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research
and development-related matters.
Subtitle B of Title II establishes certain program
requirements, restrictions, and limitations on 7 separate
research and development-related matters.
Subtitles C through E of Title II address ballistic missile
defense programs, long-term military capabilities, and
miscellaneous reports and other matters.
Subtitle A of Title III authorizes $104,332,770,000 for
operation and maintenance (O&M) and $375,044,000 for working
capital funds for the armed forces and defense agencies, Armed
Forces Retirement Home, and for the transfer from National
Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
Subtitles B through I of Title III address program
requirements, restrictions, and limitations; environmental
provisions; depot-level activities; performance of functions by
private-sector sources; defense dependents education; military
readiness issues; information technology issues; as well as
other miscellaneous matters.
Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2000 and authorizes
appropriations of $73,723,293,000 for military personnel for
fiscal year 2000. The end strengths for active duty personnel
for fiscal year 2000 are as follows:
Army, 480,000
Navy, 372,037
Marine Corps, 172,518
Air Force, 360,877
The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2000 are
as follows:
Army National Guard, 350,000
Army Reserve, 205,000
Naval Reserve, 90,288
Marine Corps Reserve, 39,624
Air National Guard, 106,678
Air Force Reserve, 73,708
Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000
The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserve components for fiscal year 2000 are as follows:
Army National Guard, 22,430
Army Reserve, 12,804
Naval Reserve, 15,010
Marine Corps Reserve, 2,272
Air National Guard, 11,157
Air Force Reserve, 1,134
Title V sets military personnel policy, including
provisions that address officer personnel policy; the reserve
components; military technicians; service academies; education
and training; reserve component management; decorations,
awards, and commendations; recruiting matters; missing persons
matters; domestic violence; and other matters such as funeral
honors details for funerals of veterans.
Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired
pay reform; retiree and survivor benefits; participation in
Thrift Savings Plan; and related matters.
Title VII contains military health care provisions,
including health care services; the TRICARE program; and other
healthcare matters.
Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition
management and related matters, including amendments to general
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations, and other
matters such as Mentor-Protege Program improvements.
Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and
management provisions, including Department of Defense
strategic planning, organization, personnel management, and
other related matters such as management of the Civil Air
Patrol.
Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial
matters; naval vessels and shipyards; civilian law enforcement
and counter-drug activities; miscellaneous report requirements
and repeals; information security; memorials and
commemorations; and other matters.
Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian
personnel.
Title XII concerns matters relating to other nations
including matters relating to the People's Republic of China;
matters relating to the Balkans; matters relating to NATO and
other Allies; and other matters such as limitations on
deployments to Haiti.
Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with
states of the Former Soviet Union.
Title XIV addresses proliferation and export controls.
Title XV addresses arms control and counterproliferation
matters.
Title XVI addresses national security space matters such as
the space technology guide; commercial space launch services;
and the Commission to Assess United States National Security
Space Management and Organization.
Title XVII addresses the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
Division B
Division B of Public Law 106-65 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $8,497,243,000 for military construction and
military family housing in support of the active forces, the
reserve components, and the NATO security investment program
for fiscal year 2000. In addition, Division B contains military
construction program and military family housing changes; real
property and facilities administration; defense base closure
and realignment; miscellaneous land conveyances, and expansion
of Arlington National Cemetery. Division B also addresses the
Commission on the National Military Museum and military land
withdrawals.
Division C
Division C of Public Law 106-65 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $12,110,322 for Department of Energy national
security programs for fiscal year 2000. Division C includes an
authorization for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board;
the National Defense Stockpile; the Panama Canal Commission;
and the Maritime Administration.
Title XXXII establishes the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) and designates the Under Secretary for
Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy as the
Administrator of the NNSA.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services reported S. 1059 on
May 17, 1999; H.R. 1401 was reported, amended, by the House
Committee on Armed Services on May 24, 1999. S. 1059 passed the
Senate, amended, on May 27, 1999, and the House, amended, on
June 14, 1999, after all was struck after the enacting clause
and the provisions of H.R. 1401 were inserted in lieu thereof.
Conferees filed a conference report on August 6, 1999, which
was agreed to in the House on September 15, 1999 and in the
Senate on September 22, 1999. S. 1059 was signed by the
President and became law on October 5, 1999.
(S. Rept. 106-50; H. Rept. 106-162; H. Rept. 106-301;
H.A.S.C. 106-2; H.A.S.C. 106-3; H.A.S.C. 106-4; H.A.S.C. 106-5;
H.A.S.C. 106-6; H.A.S.C. 106-7; H.A.S.C. 106-8; H.A.S.C. 106-9;
H.A.S.C. 106-15; H.A.S.C. 106-23)
PUBLIC LAW 106-120 (H.R. 1555)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the
Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes
Public Law 106-120 authorizes appropriations for fiscal
year 2000 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities
of the United States Government, including Department of
Defense intelligence-related activities within the jurisdiction
shared by the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Among its provisions, Public Law 106-120 authorizes
appropriations for the Intelligence Community Management
Account of the Director of Central Intelligence and earmarks
funds authorized for the National Drug Intelligence Center.
Within the Department of Defense Intelligence Activities
provisions is an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947
to authorize the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency (NIMA) to exempt NIMA operational files from provisions
of the Freedom of Information Act, which require publication,
disclosure, search, or review.
Referred additionally to the Committee on Armed Services,
the Committee was discharged from further consideration on May
11, 1999. H.R. 1555 passed the House by voice vote on May 13,
1999, and passed the Senate by voice vote on July 21, 1999. The
bill was enacted into law on December 3, 1999, following
conference between the House and Senate in which conferees were
appointed from the Committee on Armed Services.
(H. Rept. 106-130, Part I; H. Rept. 106-457 )
PUBLIC LAW 106-195 (H.J. RES. 86)
Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Korean War and the service by
members of the Armed Forces during such war, and for other purposes
H.J. Res. 86 recognizes the historic significance of the
50th anniversary of the Korean War and honors the personal
commitment and sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces
who served and fought in Korea to defeat the spread of
communism. The joint resolution was passed by the House under
suspension of the rules on March 8, 2000, and subsequently
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on April 13, 2000. The
measure was signed by the President and became law on May 2,
2000.
PUBLIC LAW 106-227 (H.J. RES. 101)
Recognizing the 225th birthday of the United States Army
H.J. Res. 101 expresses the appreciation of the people of
the United States to the Army and the dedicated soldiers who
have served in it, and honors the valor, commitment, and
sacrifice that American soldiers have displayed throughout the
225-year history of the Army. The joint resolution was referred
to the Committee on Armed Services on June 8, 2000, and was
considered and passed under suspension of the rules on June 13,
2000. H.J. Res. 101 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on
June 15, 2000, and was signed by the President and became law
on June 29, 2000.
PUBLIC LAW 106-398 (H.R. 4205)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for
other purposes
Public Law 106-398, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, authorizes funds
totaling $310,681,100,000 for national defense functions for
fiscal year 2001 and provides a budget authority level of
$309,900,320,000.
Division A
Division A of Public Law 106-398 authorizes funds for
fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Defense.
Subtitle A of Title I authorizes $63,166,621,000 for
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed
forces, defense agencies and reserve components of the armed
forces.
Subtitles B through F of Title I establish additional
program requirements, restrictions, and limitations, and
authorize transfer of or earmark funds for specified programs
for the armed forces including reports and limitations relating
to Army transformation; Navy CVNX-1 nuclear aircraft carrier
and Virginia class submarine programs; Air Force report on the
B-2 bomber, and other matters such as chemical
demilitarization.
Subtitle A of Title II authorizes $38,936,673,000 for
research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces
and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic and
applied research.
Subtitle B of Title II establishes certain program
requirements, restrictions, and limitations on 12 separate
research and development-related matters.
Subtitles C through E of Title II address Ballistic Missile
Defense, high energy laser programs, and other matters such as
Air Force science and technology planning.
Subtitle A of Title III authorizes $109,750,164,000 for
operation and maintenance (O&M) and $1,154,434,000 for working
capital funds for the armed forces and defense agencies,
including the Armed Forces Retirement Home, transfer from
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund, and joint
warfighting capabilities assessment teams.
Subtitles B through H of Title III address environmental
provisions; commissaries and nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities; Department of Defense industrial facilities;
performance of functions by private-sector sources; defense
dependents education; military readiness issues; as well as
other miscellaneous matters.
Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2001 and authorizes
appropriations of $75,801,666,000 for military personnel for
fiscal year 2001. The end strengths for active duty personnel
for fiscal year 2001 are as follows:
Army, 480,000
Navy, 372,642
Marine Corps, 172,600
Air Force, 357,000
The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2001 are
as follows:
Army National Guard, 350,526
Army Reserve, 205,300
Naval Reserve, 88,900
Marine Corps Reserve, 39,558
Air National Guard, 108,022
Air Force Reserve, 74,358
Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000
The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserve components for fiscal year 2001 are as follows:
Army National Guard, 22,974
Army Reserve, 13,106
Naval Reserve, 14,649
Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261
Air National Guard, 11,170
Air Force Reserve, 1,336
Title V sets military personnel policy, including
provisions that address officer personnel policy; reserve
component matters; military education and training;
decorations, awards and commendations; military justice and
legal assistance matters; recruiting matters; and other matters
such as the National Guard Challenge Program.
Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonus and special and
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired
pay, survivor benefits and related matters.
Title VII contains military health care provisions,
including health care services; senior health care; the TRICARE
program; demonstration projects; joint initiatives with the
Department of Veterans Affairs; and other matters such as the
management of the anthrax vaccine immunization program.
Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition
management and related matters, including amendments to general
contracting authorities, information technology, studies and
reports, and other acquisition-related matters.
Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and
management provisions, including duties and functions of
Department of Defense officers, Department of Defense
organizations, information security, reports and other matters.
Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial
matters; naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities;
counterterrorism and domestic preparedness; strategic forces;
miscellaneous report requirements and repeals; government
information security reform; security matters; and other
matters such as the Commission on the Future of the United
States Aerospace Industry.
Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian
personnel.
Title XII addresses matters relating to other nations
including matters relating to arms control; matters relating to
the Balkans; NATO and United States Forces in Europe; and other
matters such as the adjustment of composite theoretical
performance levels of high-performance computers.
Title XIII concerns Cooperative Threat Reduction with
states of the Former Soviet Union.
Title XIV establishes the Commission to Assess the Threat
to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack.
Title XV concerns matters relating to Navy activities on
the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico.
Title XVI addresses GI Bill educational assistance and
Department of Veterans Affairs duty to assist.
Title XVII concerns assistance to firefighters.
Title XVIII contains provisions that address impact aid.
Division B
Division B of Public Law 106-398 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $8,821,172,000 for military construction and
military family housing in support of the active forces, the
reserve components, and the NATO security investment program.
In addition, Division B contains miscellaneous and general
provisions that concern military construction program and
military family housing changes; real property and facilities
administration; defense base closure and realignment; land
conveyances; and other matters.
Division C
Division C of Public Law 106-398 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $13,050,370 for Department of Energy national
security programs for fiscal year 2001. Division C includes
authorization for the National Nuclear Security Administration;
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; National Defense
Stockpile; Naval Petroleum Reserves; Maritime Administration;
and Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.
The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 4205,
amended, to the House on May 12, 2000. The measure passed the
House, amended, on May 18, 2000 and passed the Senate in lieu
of S. 2549, as amended, on July 13, 2000. The House agreed to a
conference report on October 11, 2000, and the Senate on
October 12, 2000, both by recorded vote. H.R. 4205 was signed
by the President and became law on October 30, 2000.
(H. Rept. 106-616; S. Rept. 106-292; H. Rept. 106-945;
H.A.S.C. 106-37; H.A.S.C. 106-38; H.A.S.C. 106-39; H.A.S.C.
106-40; H.A.S.C. 106-41; H.A.S.C. 106-42; H.A.S.C. 106-43;
H.A.S.C. 106-45; H.A.S.C. 106-49; H.A.S.C. 106-50)
PUBLIC LAW 106-419 (S. 1402)
An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase amounts of
educational assistance for veterans under the Montgomery GI Bill and to
enhance programs providing educational benefits under that title, and
for other purposes
S. 1402, the Veterans and Dependents Millennium Education
Act, increases, as of October 1, 2002, the rates of veterans'
basic educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill. S.
1402 was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on July 27, 1999. The
measure passed the House, amended, under suspension of the
rules on May 23, 1999, and passed the Senate, with amendment,
by unanimous consent on October 12, 2000. The House concurred
in the Senate amendment and passed the bill on October 17,
2000. S. 1402 was signed by the President and became law on
November 1, 2000.
(S. Rept. 106-114)
PUBLIC LAW 106-446 (H.R. 5314)
To require the immediate termination of the Department of Defense
practice of euthanizing military working dogs at the end of their
useful working life and to facilitate the adoption of retired military
working dogs by law enforcement agencies, former handlers of these
dogs, and other persons capable of caring for these dogs
H.R. 5314 requires the Secretary of Defense to make a
military working dog available for adoption by law enforcement
agencies, former handlers, and other persons capable of
humanely caring for such dogs at the end of such dog's useful
working life or when the dog is otherwise excess to the needs
of the Department of Defense. The bill also holds harmless the
United States from any damages or injury caused by a dog after
such transfer.
H.R. 5314 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
and passed the House on October 10, 2000 under suspension of
the rules. Amended and agreed to in the Senate by unanimous
consent, the House agreed to the Senate amendment under
suspension of the rules. H.R. 5314 was signed by the President
and became law on November 6, 2000.
LEGISLATION REPORTED BUT NOT ENACTED
H. Res. 534
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the recent
nuclear weapons security failures at Los Alamos National Laboratory
demonstrate that security policy and security procedures within the
National Nuclear Security Administration remain inadequate, that the
individuals responsible for such policy and procedures must be held
accountable for their performance, and that immediate action must be
taken to correct security deficiencies
H. Res. 534 expresses the sense of the House that certain
security failures at Los Alamos National Laboratory demonstrate
continued inadequacy of nuclear weapons security policy and
procedures within the National Nuclear Security Administration
and its facilities and that the individuals responsible for the
implementation, oversight, and management of nuclear weapons
security policy and procedures within the Administration and
its facilities must be held accountable for their performance.
The resolution also stresses that the Administrator for Nuclear
Security must take immediate action to improve safeguard
procedures for classified nuclear weapons information and
correct all identified nuclear weapons security deficiencies
within the Administration.
H. Res. 534 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services
and ordered to be reported favorably on July 12, 2000. The
resolution was agreed to in the House under suspension of the
Rules on July 17, 2000. No further action was taken on the
resolution.
(H. Rept. 106-730)
H.R. 850
To amend title 18, United States Code, to affirm the rights of United
States persons to use and sell encryption and to relax export controls
on encryption
H.R. 850, the Security and Freedom through Encryption
(SAFE) Act of 1999, would have recognized the potential threat
to national security posed by relaxed export controls and
provided measures to ensure that the federal government retains
the ability to review encryption exports. At the same time the
resolution would have provided sufficient flexibility to permit
the government policy to stay current with the rapid pace of
technological advances in this area.
H.R. 850 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services,
as well as the Committees on Judiciary, International
Relations, Commerce and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. H.R. 850 was reported, amended, to the House by
the Committee on Armed Services on July 23, 1999. It was placed
on the union calendar on July 23, 1999. No further action was
taken.
(H. Rept. 106-117, Parts I-V; H.A.S.C. No. 106-16)
H.R. 3383
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to remove separate treatment or
exemption for nuclear safety violations by nonprofit institutions
H.R. 3383 would have amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
pertaining to civil monetary penalties for violations of
nuclear safety regulations to repeal the directive to the
Secretary of Energy to determine by rule whether nonprofit
educational institutions should receive automatic remission of
any such penalties and the exemption from such penalties
granted to designated research institutions. The bill would
have also limited the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed
upon certain tax-exempt nonprofit contractors, subcontractors,
or suppliers to the amount of any discretionary fee paid to
them under the contract under which such violation occurs.
On June 23, 2000, H.R. 3383 was referred additionally to
the Committee on Armed Services after the bill was reported, as
amended, by the Committee on Commerce on May 17, 2000. The
Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session on June 28,
2000 and reported the bill, as reported by the Committee on
Commerce, on July 21, 2000. H.R. 3383 was placed on the Union
Calendar and no further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 106-695, Parts I-II)
H.R. 3906
To ensure that the Department of Energy has appropriate mechanisms to
independently assess the effectiveness of its policy and site
performance in the areas of safeguards and security and cyber security
H.R. 3906, the National Nuclear Security Administration
Security Oversight Improvement Act of 2000, would have amended
the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (Public Law
106-65) to direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to establish an Office of
Independent Security Oversight headed by a Director appointed
by the Administrator and solely under the Administrator's
supervision. The Office of Independent Security Oversight would
have been responsible for the independent evaluation of the
effectiveness of safeguards and security policies and
procedures of the NNSA.
H.R. 3906 was referred to the Committees on Armed Services,
Commerce, and Science. H.R. 3906 was reported, as amended, from
the Committee on Commerce on June 23, 2000. The Committee on
Science was discharged from further consideration of the bill
that same day. On June 28, 2000, the Committee on Armed
Services held a markup session to consider H.R. 3906. The
committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute by
a voice vote and the bill, as amended, was ordered reported
favorably to the House. No further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 106-696, Parts I-II)
H.R. 4446
To ensure that the Secretary of Energy may continue to exercise certain
authorities under the Price-Anderson Act through the Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health
H.R. 4446, as reported by the Committee on Armed Services,
would have required the Secretary of Energy to exercise the
authorities to assess penalties on Department of Energy (DOE)
contractors who violate DOE nuclear safety rules and
regulations at the National Security Laboratories of the
Department of Energy in a manner consistent with the
establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) authorized by title 32 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
H.R. 4446 would have authorized the Secretary to delegate the
exercise of these authorities, as they pertain to the NNSA, to
the Administrator for Nuclear Security only and prohibit
delegation of these authorities, as they pertain to the NNSA,
to the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety
and Health.
On June 23, 2000, H.R. 4446 was referred additionally to
the Committee on Armed Services after being reported by the
Committee on Commerce. On July 21, 2000, the Committee on Armed
Services reported the measure, as amended, to the House. No
further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 106-694, Parts I-II)
H.R. 4737
To require an inventory of documents and devices containing Restricted
Data at the national security laboratories of the Department of Energy,
to improve security procedures for access to the vaults containing
Restricted Data at those laboratories, and for other purposes
H.R. 4737 would have enhanced security controls over the
handling of classified nuclear weapons information at the
national security laboratories of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) of the Department of Energy. The bill
would have required the Administrator for Nuclear Security to
conduct an inventory of each document or device containing
classified nuclear weapons information and to assess the use of
polygraphic examinations as a prerequisite to access to such
information. H.R. 4737 would also have specified the procedures
required to gain access to document storage vaults at the
national security laboratories and would have established
minimum standards for electronic locks for use in the
safeguarding of classified nuclear weapons information.
H.R. 4737 was introduced on June 23, 2000, and referred to
the Committee on Armed Services. On June 28, 2000, the
Committee held a markup session to consider H.R. 4737 and an
amendment in the nature of a substitute was adopted by a voice
vote. The bill was ordered reported, as amended, favorably to
the House by a voice vote. No further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 106-1035, Part I)
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
The oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Armed
Services were conducted primarily within the context of the
committee's consideration of annual defense authorization
bills, which cover the breadth of the operations of the
Department of Defense as well as two-thirds of the annual
budget of the Department of Energy. The Department of Defense's
nearly $300 billion annual budget involves millions of military
and civilian personnel, thousands of facilities, and hundreds
of agencies, departments, and commands located around the
world.
SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN
The committee continued its oversight and assessment of
threats to U.S. national security and interests and the
preparedness of America's armed forces to address them. To aid
in this effort, the committee received classified and
unclassified briefings on the international threat environment
throughout the 106th Congress. In consideration of the fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 defense budget requests, the committee
conducted oversight hearings with the Secretary of Defense,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service Secretaries and
Chiefs of Staff, regional Commanders-in-Chief, and officials of
the Department of Defense, military departments, Central
Intelligence Agency, defense-related intelligence agencies, and
Department of Energy. The committee also received the views and
perspectives of outside experts in academia, industry, and
associations on national security matters.
While the majority of the committee's oversight was planned
to support the annual defense authorization bill, the committee
also conducted oversight activities as demanded by critical
current events.
ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following specific areas and subjects were designated
for special attention during the 106th Congress:
quality of life
The committee continued to address critical issues and
programs affecting the quality of life for military personnel
and their families. In particular, the committee investigated
the following: conditions of facilities where service personnel
and their families live and work, including the investment
strategy of the Department of Defense for maintaining adequate
facilities; cost, accessibility, and quality of peacetime
military health care, including the adequacy and relevance of
military health care facilities construction to the health care
objectives of the Department of Defense; research and health
care issues related to the care of veterans of the Persian Gulf
War; policies, procedures and systems of the Department of
Defense and the military departments related to sexual
misconduct; family support programs, including child care and
dependent education; quality and adequacy of the military
family housing supply; quality and adequacy of barracks,
bachelor enlisted quarters, and dormitories; implementation of
the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (section 2801 of
Public Law 104-106, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996); and backlogs in the repair and maintenance
of military housing.
The committee also gave special attention to the oversight
of Morale, Welfare and Recreation programs including the
operation of military exchanges and commissaries and the
welfare of nonappropriated fund construction programs and other
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. These efforts resulted
in a number of initiatives contained in the National Defense
Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (Public Laws
106-65 and 106-398, respectively) to protect commissary funds
used for modernization and replacement of facilities and to
expand the types of merchandise sold at military exchanges and
commissaries.
force readiness
The committee continued its assessment of the readiness of
U.S. armed forces and the adequacy of the Administration's
defense spending priorities to sustain readiness and
modernization of U.S. military forces. Since 1995, the
committee's ongoing investigations into the status of military
readiness have revealed contradictions between official reports
and the reality confronting military personnel on a day-to-day
basis in the field. During the 106th Congress, the committee
continued its annual series of hearings to receive the views of
operational unit commanders and senior non-commissioned
officers on military readiness. Their testimony confirmed
concerns that the readiness of U.S. military forces is in
decline, and provided the committee with vital information
about how best to slow the erosion of military readiness.
Accordingly, the committee targeted additional funds at
critical accounts for training, recruiting, base operations,
spare parts, and real property maintenance in the annual
Defense authorization bills.
In addition, the committee focused on: the effectiveness of
congressionally-revised methods of measuring the readiness of
military units; assessing the amount of training required to
maintain a high state of readiness and whether training
requirements are being properly funded; the impact of the high
pace of deployments on service personnel and their families;
current policies supporting officer and enlisted recruiting,
accessions, training, promotions, separations, and retirements;
the value of pay, compensation, and other benefits of military
service; military recruitment and retention programs; and the
condition of wartime medical readiness.
military modernization
In late 1995, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General John Shalikashvili, advised the Secretary of Defense
that $60 billion would be required annually by fiscal year 1998
to recapitalize the United States military. More than four
years after this pronouncement, and three years after its
subsequent endorsement by the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review,
the fiscal year 2001 procurement budget request finally reached
this level. As a result of this delay, the military service
chiefs testified during the 106th Congress that many of their
modernization needs have gone unmet. To address the most
pressing of these unfunded requirements, the committee
increased the President's military procurement budget requests
by more than $20 billion over the past six years, including $5
billion added by the 106th Congress through the annual defense
authorization process.
Also during the 106th Congress, the committee continued its
assessment of the modernization requirements of the Department
of Defense through several broad-based hearings on procurement
and research and development programs, as well as a number of
more focused hearings in the following areas: the adequacy of
the submarine modernization plans of the Navy; the status of
the National Missile Defense program; critical infrastructure
protection andinformation assurance; shipbuilding requirements;
assessing the threat posed by the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons to U.S. forces; and the performance of U.S. military
equipment in the Balkan conflicts.
national military strategy and force structure
The committee paid particular attention to the following:
the strategic and tactical assumptions supporting the national
military strategy of the United States; the role of contingency
operations in the execution of the national military strategy
and the force structure required to sustain such operations;
the technological, doctrinal, and other factors affecting the
long-term transformation of the conduct of military operations;
initiatives to enhance national guard and reserve forces and
the integration of active and reserve components; the military
requirements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
military combatant commands; and the roles and missions of the
armed services and their implications on modernization
requirements and the development of major weapons systems.
ballistic missile defense
The committee placed the highest priority on ensuring that
U.S. ballistic missile defense programs, including national
missile defense and theater missile defense programs, were
well-funded and managed, and directed toward the ultimate goal
of protecting the American people and U.S. troops abroad from
ballistic missile attacks. Throughout the 106th Congress, the
committee conducted oversight of missile defense research and
development efforts, plans for deployment of national missile
defenses and advanced theater missile defenses, and the rapid
evolution of theater and long-range ballistic missile threats.
Noting significant funding shortfalls, the committee approved
substantial increases to the President's requests for theater
and national missile defense programs including an additional
$352 million for fiscal year 2000 and $358.6 million for fiscal
year 2001.
The committee also took actions to ensure that ballistic
missile defense architectures and programs are well
coordinated. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) and the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398)
moved program management for the Space Based Infrared System-
Low program (a sensor system critical to missile defense
systems) from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO). Furthermore, Public Law 106-398 provided
the director of BMDO a significant management role in the
Airborne Laser program and required a plan to address
intermediate range missile threats.
Also during the 106th Congress, the committee reinvigorated
high-energy laser research relevant to missile defense and
other military applications. Public Law 106-65 mandated that
the Department of Defense develop a high-energy laser master
plan and Public Law 106-398 required the Department to
implement the plan and established incentives for the military
departments to fund high-energy laser research and development
more adequately.
base closure and realignment (BRAC)
The committee continued to review the costs and savings
associated with base realignment and closure actions taken in
1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, the impact of base realignment and
closure actions on affected local communities and military
readiness, and the management of the base realignment and
closure process by the military services.
military applications of nuclear energy
The committee conducted oversight in relation to the
following: the safety, security, and effectiveness of the
nuclear weapons stockpile; the continued ability of nuclear
weapons complex to sustain the nuclear weapons stockpile; the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative; tritium
requirements and production technology; the ability to sustain
a skilled nuclear weapons workforce; future requirements for
plutonium pit production; and the use of Department of Energy
skills and assets to reinforce ballistic missile defense
efforts.
The committee gave special emphasis to oversight of the
National Ignition Facility project because of significant
schedule delays and cost growth. The committee also addressed
serious organizational issues and management and security
deficiencies at the Department of Energy and sought to ensure
that the operations and practices of the Department of Energy
are compliant with Title 32 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65),
which established a semi-autonomous organization to manage the
nuclear weapons complex. The committee also took steps to
ensure better planning and fiscal discipline within the nuclear
weapons activities of the Department of Energy.
organization and management of the department of defense
Despite significant progress in recent years to force
organizational and management reforms on the Department of
Defense through workforce reductions, common-sense business
practice reforms, and pilot programs to test new business
concepts, waste and inefficiency remain part of the
Department's business culture. Wasteful practices at the
Department must be eliminated, and savings must be redirected
to meet important priorities such as critical shortfalls in
modernization and readiness accounts. As such, the committee
continued to pursue efforts to decrease the costs associated
with the defense service support infrastructure and to
encourage the Department of Defense to comply with established
downsizing and streamlining goals. The committee also continued
to monitor the implementation of the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1994, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of
1996, and other recent reforms of the federal acquisition
system. In addition, the committee evaluated and implemented
proposals to further reform the military procurement process to
achieve greater efficiencies and economies.
technology transfers and export controls
The committee continued its examination of the current U.S.
export control regime and its effectiveness in preventing the
transfer of sensitive military-related technologies to
potential adversaries. In particular, the committee focused on
the following: the impact of U.S. policy regarding the export
of sophisticated encryption products on U.S. national security;
implementation of requirements related to the export of high
performance computers (so-called ``supercomputers'') contained
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
(Public Law 105-85); the results and impact of the licensing
jurisdiction changes related to the export of U.S. satellites
mandated by the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261); and assessing
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Select
Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/
CommercialConcerns With the People's Republic of China with a view
toward developing appropriate legislative remedies to prevent the
unauthorized or dangerous transfer of military-related U.S. technology
to China.
INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL BASE
The committee assessed the following: current budget and
policy priorities of the Department of Defense on the
maintenance of the defense industrial and technology base; the
ramifications of mergers and acquisitions in the defense
industry on the development of future weapons systems; dual-use
technology programs; the current defense laboratory system; and
the role of defense funding for university research in the
maintenance of the technology base.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
The committee paid particular attention to the following:
current federal, state, and local environmental compliance,
remediation, and restoration requirements imposed on the
Department of Defense, the military services, and the
Department of Energy; current and planned funding requirements
for environmental programs of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy, including the cost effectiveness of such
programs; and the diversion of military training and operations
and maintenance funds to meet unfunded environmental
requirements and the impact of such diversions on training and
readiness.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
The committee paid close attention to mandates placed on
executive departments and agencies by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62). In so
doing, the committee closely observed Department of Defense,
military departments, and Department of Energy efforts to
comply with Public Law 103-62 to include the use of
performance-based budgeting techniques and five-year strategic
planning documents.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
During the 105th Congress, the committee discovered
worrisome trends in efforts to recruit and retain critical
military personnel. In fact, the Army, Navy, and Air Force all
missed recruiting goals for fiscal year 1999, and several of
the reserve components missed fiscal year 1999 recruiting goals
by sizeable margins. These figures caused great concern within
the committee, resulting in persistent congressional efforts to
continually reassess the condition of the services' recruiting
and retention efforts by conducting hearings both in
Washington, D.C., and at military facilities around the
country.
Fortunately, substantial and sustained congressional
support for recruiting and retention efforts by the committee,
including more than $500 million in additional funding from
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001, began to have
results, as all of the services reported significant
improvements in recruiting efforts during fiscal year 2000.
Likewise, congressional efforts to retain key military
personnel through increased pay and improved benefits also
resulted in improved retention rates. Though each of the
services continue to struggle to meet retention goals, reports
at the end of calendar year 2000 indicate an increasing number
of critical personnel are choosing to remain in the force. To a
large extent, these successes may be attributed to additional
funding for recruiting and retention efforts combined with
compensation and retirement reforms enacted in the fiscal years
2000 and 2001 defense authorization bills.
MILITARY RETIREMENT AND COMPENSATION
The committee examined a wide range of compensation issues
during the 106th Congress. During hearings with military
personnel, family members, association representatives, and
defense officials, the committee pursued concerns about
military pay levels, the role of special and incentive pays,
and the adequacy of pay during deployments. This review
resulted in legislation in the fiscal years 2000 and 2001
defense authorization bills to increase basic, special, and
incentive pays, reform pay tables, and reduce out-of-pocket
housing costs for military personnel. In addition, the
committee closed the gap between military and civilian pay
levels by requiring that future military pay increases exceed
the rate of inflation by one-half percent.
During the 105th Congress, the committee heard evidence
that the reduction in military retirement benefits enacted in
1986 was hampering the ability of the services to recruit and
retain quality personnel. Testimony received during the 106th
Congress further supported this position, and led the committee
to enact a comprehensive reform of the military retirement
system in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65). In addition, the committee
recognized the value of 401(k)-type retirement savings plans to
recruiting and retention efforts, and authorized military
participation in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan through the
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 defense authorization bills.
MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
In several hearings held during the second session of the
106th Congress, service members and their families testified
that the existing health care benefit for military personnel
was insufficient and an eroding benefit. Accordingly, the
committee took numerous actions to ensure that military
members, retirees, and their families have access to quality
health care, and to improve the military heath care system.
Through the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), the committee
restructured the military health care program and provided
permanent lifetime TRICARE eligibility to Medicare-eligible
military retirees and their family members beginning in fiscal
year 2002. In addition, the committee expanded the mail order
and network retail pharmacy programs of the Department of
Defense to ensure that all Medicare-eligible military retirees
and family members have access to reduced-cost prescription
drugs. To ensure that the costs of the expanded senior retiree
health care benefit does not compete for funding with other
critical defense priorities within the Department of Defense
budget, the committee reformed the financing process for the
Defense Health Program. This reform established an accrual
funding mechanism, similar to that used for military retired
pay benefits, to pay for senior retiree health care.
The committee also took steps to eliminate inequities in
health care costs for military personnel, protect retirees from
excessive medical expenses by reducing the maximum annual out-
of-pocket medical expense level for retired TRICARE
beneficiaries, and provide additional funds to implement good
business practices and technologies that have the potential to
improve the military health care system.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT, COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY, AND
ORGANIZATION
At the beginning of the 106th Congress, the Select
Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial
Concerns with the People's Republic of China (known as the
``Cox Committee'') released a bipartisan report entitled U.S.
National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
People's Republic of China. The report revealed that the
People's Republic of China (PRC) has obtained classified
information on all of the United States most advanced
thermonuclear warheads. Drawing on the findings of that select
committee, the committee conducted hearings concerning the
compromised nuclear weapon design information, and the
information security and physical security measures implemented
by the Department of Energy to prevent future compromise of
nuclear weapons information.
In June 1999, the committee received testimony from Warren
Rudman, chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board (PFIAB), on an inquiry the Board undertook on
security problems at the DOE weapons laboratories and the
adequacy of the measures undertaken by the Department of Energy
to address them. The PFIAB found a 25-year history of reports,
studies, and inquiries identifying chronic management,
security, and counterintelligence problems at the weapons labs,
and attempted but aborted reforms. The Board reported that the
Department of Energy and the weapons laboratories suffer from a
lack of mission focus, unclear lines of authority, and a deeply
rooted culture of low regard for security issues and concluded
that the Department is a dysfunctional bureaucracy that has
proven incapable of reforming itself. The PFIAB recommended
reorganization of the nuclear weapons functions of the
Department of Energy by establishing either a new independent
agency or a new semi-autonomous agency within the Department of
Energy to manage those functions.
The reports of the Cox Committee and the PFIAB, reinforced
by hearings of the committee, led to the reorganization of
these functions within the Department of Energy and significant
security and counterintelligence legislation. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) created a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of
Energy with responsibility for all nuclear weapons, naval
nuclear propulsion, and nonproliferation work. The legislation:
(1) established a new position of Administrator for
Nuclear Security who, while serving under the
direction, control, and authority of the Secretary of
Energy, may establish NNSA-unique policy;
(2) established DOE Offices of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence and NNSA Offices of Defense Nuclear
Security and Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence;
(3) established clear lines of authority for both
NNSA personnel and NNSA contractor personnel and
personnel policies to reshape the NNSA workforce; and
(4) required that the NNSA forward a budget and a
future year nuclear security plan that provides more
fiscal discipline and better congressional oversight.
In April 1999, and later in November 1999, the committee
held hearings on alleged espionage activities at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory that may have contributed to the loss of
design information for the W-88 and other U.S. nuclear warheads
to the PRC. One of these hearings centered on the initial
failure of the Department of Energy to inform the committee
about this extremely significant counterintelligence loss. The
other hearing was focused on why the Department of Energy and
the Los Alamos Laboratory allowed continued access to
classified nuclear weapon information by the main suspect in
this espionage case.
In June 2000, the Department of Energy informed the
committee that two removable computer hard drives containing
highly classified nuclear weapons information were missing from
the Los Alamos national laboratory. The committee held a
hearing to examine the content of the hard drives and the
management problems that led to their initial loss.
U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE BALKANS REGION
On March 24, 1999, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) undertook military action against Yugoslavia, beginning
a three-month air war against Yugoslavia's integrated air
defense system and command and control systems. The committee
held hearings and received classified intelligence and
operations briefings on various aspects of the air campaign and
the option to use ground troops for the mission. The committee
prepared a series of reports outlining and analyzing U.S.
policy toward Bosnia and the Balkans and a number of
Congressional fact-finding delegations traveled to the region
to focus on Kosovo operations and associated diplomatic,
military, and humanitarian relief issues. In an effort to gain
a comprehensive understanding of U.S. policy toward Bosnia and
to ensure oversight of U.S. military deployments to the
Balkans, the committee received testimony from the Secretary of
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, various
defense officials, and numerous distinguished retired officers
and analysts.
BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT
Over the past six years, the committee has become
increasingly concerned by the vulnerability of the United
States to ballistic missile attack. In addition to the 1998
findings of the bipartisan and independent Commission to Assess
the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, the spread
of ballistic missile technology without the prior knowledge of
U.S. intelligence organizations has raised serious questions
about the ability of the intelligence community to foresee the
emergence of ballistic missile threats. Furthermore, the
Administration has displayed a disinclination to move forward
with the rapid development of technologies to defend against
such threats. The committee's concern about the threat of
ballistic missile attack led the committee to increase funding
for ballistic missile defense programs beyond amounts requested
by the President and to pass the National Missile Defense Act
of 1999 (Public Law 106-38) making it the policy of the United
States to deploy a national missile defense.
INVESTIGATION INTO MILITARY ABSENTEE BALLOTS
In the wake of allegations raised during the November 2000
election that both the Department of Defense and state election
boards mishandled the ballots of overseas military personnel,
the committee undertook an initial review of the absentee
balloting process, the Federal Voter Assistance Program, and
the Department of Defense mail system. The committee also
called upon the General Accounting Office to examine overseas
absentee ballots that had been rejected by county election
officials and to assess the Federal Voter Assistance Program
administered by the Department of Defense to better understand
the problems and the solutions that may be available to the
Congress. The committee aggressively investigated complaints
about groups of service members serving at sea or assigned to
remote locations that had been denied their voting rights due
to problems with the voting process or mail systems.
Furthermore, the committee contacted service members whose
overseas absentee ballots were rejected by election officials
inFlorida to determine how the overseas voting process can be
improved. The committee expects to continue oversight of the matter
during the 107th Congress.
u.s. policy toward iraq
During the 106th Congress, the committee continued to
exercise its oversight role with respect to military
deployments in the Persian Gulf region, especially the
continued enforcement of the ``no-fly zones'' over northern and
southern Iraq. During 1999 and 2000, the committee held a
number of hearings to explore U.S. policy toward Iraq and the
prospects for re-establishing a weapons inspections regime to
prevent Iraq from acquiring additional weapons of mass
destruction. In particular, on March 10, 1999, and March 11,
1999, the committee held separate hearings on U.S. policy
toward Iraq and U.S. activities in the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, the committee received testimony from the
Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command on March 15, 2000,
in connection with the annual defense budget request, regarding
the situation in Iraq and the continuing U.S. military activity
in the region. Finally, in both the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 Defense authorization bills, the committee extended
the Department of Defense's authority to support the re-
establishment of a United Nations weapons inspection regime in
Iraq by providing expertise, equipment, and materiel in support
of the UN-mandated weapons inspection mission.
investigation into the terrorist attack on the u.s.s. cole
On October 12, 2000, a small boat exploded along the port
side of the U.S.S. Cole (DDG-67) during a brief refueling stop
in the port of Aden, Yemen. The blast resulted in a 40 by 45
foot hole in the side of the ship, killing 17 sailors and
wounding some three-dozen more. In the aftermath of the attack,
the committee initiated oversight of the incident and received
a classified briefing from Department of Defense officials on
the initial reports surrounding the attack. Subsequently, the
committee met in both open and closed sessions to receive
testimony on the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The committee also
initiated an investigation of the incident. As part of this
investigation, the committee reviewed general and specific
force protection issues with the staff of the Commander-in-
Chief, Atlantic Fleet, the Commander-in-Chief, Central Command,
the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, the Defense Intelligence
Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of the Chief
of Naval Operations, the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
and the Defense Energy Support Activity. The committee intends
to publish its findings on the attack early in the 107th
Congress.
encryption control policy
Information warfare has become a critical element of U.S.
military strategy--the United States must be able to protect
its own communications from interception while exploiting the
weaknesses in the information systems and communications of its
potential adversaries. However, the explosive growth of the
internet and electronic commerce in recent years has increased
concerns about information security as a growing number of
individuals and businesses now have access to the information
superhighway and the ability to transmit volumes of personal
and proprietary data from one user to another nearly
instantaneously. As technology advances, the risk that the
secure transmission of information may be compromised by
computer ``hackers'' increases, resulting in calls for improved
encryption capabilities.
During the first session of the 106th Congress, H.R. 850,
the ``Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act'' was
introduced and sequentially referred to the House Committee on
Armed Services. The committee was concerned that this
legislation, similar to legislation introduced during the 105th
Congress, would liberalize U.S. encryption policy by allowing
commercially-available encryption software--along with any
computers containing such software (including supercomputers)--
to be exported without a government-issued export license.
Furthermore, the committee believed that this legislation would
nullify the supercomputer provisions of National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85). As
such, the committee took testimony from the Deputy Director of
the National Security Agency Barbara McNamara and Deputy
Secretary of Defense John Hamre on the national security
implications of H.R. 850 on July 1, 1999. Based in part on such
testimony, the committee amended H.R. 850 to preserve
encryption software export controls by a committee vote of 47-
6.
reserve components
The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) marked the third
consecutive year that the grades limits were increased for
reserve members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-
time national guard duty for administration of the reserves or
the national guard, also known as active guard reserve (AGR)
members. The role of AGRs was expanded by section 555 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65), resulting in a need for new career progression
opportunities. Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 includes a requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to study the grade structure requirements
of the AGR force and provide a comprehensive plan to manage AGR
controlled grades not later than March 31, 2001.
The committee also considered a number of reforms to
improve the welfare of reservists and enhance compensation
programs. The committee included several initiatives in Public
Law 106-398, including authority:
(1) for reservists to travel on military aircraft on
a space available basis when traveling to inactive duty
training;
(2) to exempt reserve officers from consideration for
promotion with active duty officers when serving on
active duty for less than three years;
(3) for reserve officers to obtain military legal
assistance following separation from active duty;
(4) for reservists to be paid the full amount based
on grade for a training period when they participate in
details providing military honors at funerals of
veterans;
(5) for reservists not on active duty to receive
special duty assignment pay; and
(6) for an increase in the number of reserve
retirement points that may be earned in a year from 75
to 90.
In addition, the committee continued oversight of the
management by the Department of Defense of its full-time
support force. Although the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) required the
Department of Defense to submit a plan to eliminate non-dual
status military technicians, the Department did not comply with
the law. As such, the committee included several provisions in
Public Law 106-65 to strengthen the military technician
program. These provisions included legislation to provide for
mandatory civil service retirement for certain non-dual status
military technicians and to reduce the number of non-dualstatus
military technicians in the Army and Air Force Reserve to no more than
175 by October 1, 2007. The committee also provided for early civil
service retirement for reserve and national guard military technicians
hired after February 10, 1996, in recognition that these dual status
military technicians must retain dual status or forfeit their jobs.
Additionally, the committee recognized the unique nature of some
national guard military technician positions and provided authority for
the national guard to retain no more than 1,950 non-dual status
military technicians.
anthrax vaccine immunization program
The committee continued oversight of the Department of
Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP), amid
concerns over the inability of the sole manufacturer of the
vaccine to achieve Food and Drug Administration approval for
production of vaccine in its rebuilt manufacturing facility.
The committee conducted two oversight hearings in Washington,
D.C. and included the AVIP program in discussion with soldiers
and sailors during focus group sessions at several military
installations. In addition, the committee conducted two
oversight inspections at Bioport, the DOD contractor for
producing the vaccine, and reviewed in detail the Food and Drug
Administration's plans for inspection and final approval of
Bioport's rebuilt manufacturing facility. Based on these
efforts, the committee remained concerned that the Department
of Defense has not adequately addressed service members'
concerns about the potency and purity of the vaccine. To
address these concerns, the committee included requirements in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398) to establish uniform guidelines to be
applied by each of the four services when determining
vaccination exemption policies and several reporting
requirements to facilitate the committee future oversight of
the AVIP program.
merchant marine and panama canal
The committee paid particular attention to the following:
examination of programs to maintain the U.S. flag merchant
fleet and its role in strategic and sustainment sealift; the
condition of the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF) and its
ability to meet surge requirements; and the scrapping of
obsolete vessels under the control of the Maritime
Administration. The committee also continued its oversight of
the Panama Canal Commission until the transfer of the canal to
the government of Panama in December 1999.
chemical stockpile destruction program
The committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Defense program for destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal
chemical agents and munitions in such a manner as to ensure the
maximum protection of the general public, the personnel
involved in the program, and the environment.
Reflecting long-term concern over the growing cost of the
program, the committee initiated legislation in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) that resulted in direction to the Secretary of Defense to
assess measures for reducing the cost of the program and
ensuring its completion in accordance with the obligations of
the United States under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Additionally, to provide flexibility in the future use of
chemical stockpile destruction facilities, Public Law 106-65
provided that non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions, or
related materials could be destroyed in chemical stockpile
destruction facilities, on the basis of a site-specific
agreement between the Department and the governor of the state
in which the destruction facility is located. The legislation
also provided that chemical stockpile destruction facilities
will be disposed of in accordance with such agreements
following completion of the chemical stockpile destruction
program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398) continued support for the program and
included provisions to restrict the chemical stockpile
destruction technologies which may be considered for use at
Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, limit destruction of non-
stockpile chemical warfare material at the Anniston Chemical
Stockpile Disposal Facility, Alabama, and direct a report by
the Secretary of Defense on the need for federal economic
assistance for communities that have been impacted by chemical
weapons stockpile storage sites and their associated chemical
agent and munitions destruction activities. During an oversight
hearing prior to enactment of Public Law 106-398, the committee
noted progress in the destruction of the chemical agents and
munitions stockpiles on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific and
Tooele Chemical Depot, Utah, and at other chemical stockpile
disposal sites; the lessons learned and corrective actions
being taken in response release of a small amount of agent from
the destruction facility at Tooele; the status of the chemical
stockpile emergency preparedness program; and concerns,
including the potential economic impact of the program, raised
by local communities.
review of radio frequency spectrum reallocation
Several reports by the Department of Defense highlight the
historical importance of military access to the radio frequency
spectrum. Furthermore, in testimony before a joint hearing of
the Subcommittees on Military Procurement and Military Research
and Development on February 23, 1999, Department of Defense
witnesses indicated that the planned reallocation of portions
of the frequency spectrum that were reserved for military
purposes could significantly degrade the capabilities of many
major weapons systems and cost the Department hundreds of
millions of dollars, and recommended a review of national radio
frequency spectrum policy. Accordingly, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65)
limited the surrender of those portions of the frequency
spectrum assigned primarily for use by the Department and
directed the return of eight megahertz of previously
reallocated spectrum to the Department of Defense. Public Law
106-65 also directed an interagency review of progress in
implementation of national spectrum planning, reallocation of
federal spectrum to non-federal use, and implications of such
reallocation to the affected federal executive agencies.
OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Budget Activity
On March 2, 1999, the committee forwarded its views and
estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function
050) for fiscal year 2000 to the Committee on the Budget. The
committee noted that budget request fell approximately $17
billion short of the requirements identified by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff for fiscal year 2000, and the committee again
expressed concern over the Administration's underestimation of
defense outlays in the President's Budget. The committee noted
that should the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget fail to
provide sufficient defense outlays to reconcile the
Administration's underestimation, severe reductions in defense
spending would be necessary. The committee did not recommend
specific National Defense (function 050) authorization levels
for budget authority and outlays, but instead sought sufficient
discretionary and mandatory resources to address critical
recruiting and retention needs, such as retirement and pay
reforms.
On February 25, 2000, the committee forwarded its views and
estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function
050) for fiscal year 2001 to the Committee on the Budget. The
committee expressed its concern about the potential for a
difference between the Office of Management and Budget and the
Congressional Budget Office in the estimation of defense
outlays in the President's Budget. The committee's views and
estimates were provided before the Congressional Budget Office
had completed its independent estimate of the President's
Budget so the committee did not recommend specific National
Defense (function 050) authorization levels for budget
authority and outlays. The committee noted that the budget
request fell approximately $16.0 billion short of the
requirements identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff for fiscal
year 2001 and that this estimate was over $5 billion higher
than the preceding year's estimate of the shortfall for fiscal
year 2001. Although the committee did not recommend specific
National Defense (function 050) authorization levels for the
reason noted above, it did seek additional discretionary and
mandatory resources to address critical unfunded requirements,
military participation in the Thrift Savings Program, and
military health care reform.
Full Committee Hearings
During the 106th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services
held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and
oversight roles. An examination of existing and emerging
threats to the United States and its global national security
interests provided the thematic overlay for the committee's
consideration of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 defense budget
requests. Other full committee hearings focused on U.S.
national security strategy; the deployment and employment of
U.S. military forces abroad in the Balkans, including on
peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo and in support of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization military air campaign
against Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force); U.S. policy in the
Persian Gulf; nuclear security at Department of Energy (DOE)
laboratories and DOE reorganization; encryption, high-
performance computers and export controls; national missile
defense; relations with the People's Republic of China; the
situation in Colombia; and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
(H.A.S.C. 106-1; H.A.S.C. 106-2; H.A.S.C. 106-10; H.A.S.C.
106-12; H.A.S.C. 106-13; H.A.S.C. 106-14; H.A.S.C. 106-16;
H.A.S.C. 106-17; H.A.S.C. 106-20; H.A.S.C. 106-33; H.A.S.C.
106-34; H.A.S.C. 106-35; H.A.S.C. 37; H.A.S.C. 106-44; H.A.S.C.
106-46; H.A.S.C. 106-47; H.A.S.C. 106-53; H.A.S.C. 106-54;
H.A.S.C. 106-60; H.A.S.C. 106-61; H.A.S.C. 106-65)
posture hearings
In exercising its oversight obligations, the committee
sought and received testimony early in each session of the
106th Congress from Administration officials with respect to
the Administration's overall national security policy, plans,
and programs, and the budget proposals requested to implement
them. As part of its review of these issues, the committee
requested and received posture statements from the Secretary of
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
uniformed service chiefs, and the service Secretaries.
In the first session, during deliberations on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (H.R. 1401), the
committee received testimony from Secretary of Defense William
S. Cohen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry
H. Shelton, and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief
Financial Officer) William J. Lynn, III on February 2, 1999.
Subsequently, the committee received testimony from the
uniformed service chiefs; Gen. Dennis J. Reimer, Chief of Staff
of the Army; Adm. Jay L. Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations;
Gen. Charles C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps; and
Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, Vice-Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
on February 24, 1999. The committee received testimony from the
service secretaries; Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army;
Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; and F. Whitten Peters,
Acting Secretary of the Air Force, on March 25, 1999.
In addition, the committee heard from regional commanders-
in-chief. On March 3, 1999, the committee met to receive
testimony from Adm. Dennis C. Blair, USN, Commander in Chief,
U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM); and Gen. John Tilelli, USA,
Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). On March 11,
1999, the committee received testimony from Gen. Anthony C.
Zinni, USMC, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM); and on March 17, 1999, the committee heard from Gen.
Wesley K. Clark, USA, Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command
(EUCOM).
During the second session, the committee began its
deliberations on the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (H.R. 4205) with an initial posture hearing on
February 9, 2000, receiving testimony from Secretary Cohen and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Shelton. This was
followed on February 10, 2000, with testimony from the
uniformed service chiefs; Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, Chief of Staff
of the Army; Adm. Jay L. Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations;
Gen. Michael E. Ryan, Chief of Staff of the Air Force; and Gen.
James L. Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps. Subsequently,
the committee received testimony from regional commanders-in-
chief. On February 17, 2000, the committee heard from Gen.
Wesley K. Clark, USA, Commander in Chief, EUCOM; and on March
15, 2000 from Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, USMC, Commander in Chief,
CENTCOM; Adm. Dennis C. Blair, USN, Commander in Chief, PACOM;
and Gen. Thomas A. Schwartz, USA, Commander in Chief, USFK. On
March 22, 2000, the committee heard from the service
secretaries; Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; Richard
Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; and F. Whitten Peters, Secretary
of the Air Force.
(H.A.S.C. 106-2, H.A.S.C. 106-37)
Threats to u.s. national security
During the 106th Congress, the committee's review of the
Administration's defense budget proposals was framed by an
assessment and evaluation of the threats to U.S. national
security. On February 3, 1999, the committee received testimony
in closed session from the Director of Central Intelligence,
George Tenet, and the Director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency, Lt. Gen. Patrick M. Hughes. On February 4, 1999, the
committee heard from Mr. John Gannon, Chairman, National
Intelligence Council; Mr. Robert Walpole, National Intelligence
Officer for Strategic & Nuclear Programs; Mr. Ben Bonk,
National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Mr.
Barry Lowenkron, National Intelligence Officer for Europe; and
Ms. Mary Tighe, National Intelligence Officer for East Asia.
The information received provided important context for the
committee's consideration of the Administration's fiscal year
2000 defense budget request. This approach was repeated during
the committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2001 budget
request, as General John A. Gordon, Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence and Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, Director, Defense
Intelligence Agency, appeared before the committee on February
16, 2000 to discuss worldwide threats to the United States and
U.S. global interests. The committee also received a classified
briefing from the Joint Staff on global hot spots and threats
to U.S. interests on September 29, 1999.
u.s. national security strategy
The committee continued its examination of U.S. national
security strategy and the national military strategy during the
106th Congress with a view toward judging the appropriateness
of U.S. strategy and the adequacy of defense resources being
applied to execute it.
On October 5, 1999, the committee took testimony from
members of the United States Commission on National Security/
21st Century, established by Congress to provide an independent
assessment of the national security challenges facing the
United States in the next quarter century. The commission's
``Phase One'' report outlining its view of anticipated
challenges provided the backdrop for the committee's hearing.
In addition, the committee began the second session of the
106th Congress by holding a hearing on the relationship between
U.S. military strategy and defense resources. On February 8,
2000, the committee took testimony from former Secretary of
Defense James R. Schlesinger and analysts from the Center for
Strategic and International Studies with respect to the
Administration's defense budget requests and the need for
significantly increased resources for defense. Secretary
Schlesinger's testimony that the United States faces a coming
``train wreck'' in defense and that the United States ``simply
cannot continue to play the global leadership role envisioned
by the current national security strategy without a substantial
increase in defense spending'' formed the basis for the
committee's efforts during the second session of the 106th
Congress to increase the defense budget topline and to ensure
that the military services received the resources necessary to
successfully carry out their missions at the lowest possible
level of risk.
(H.A.S.C. 106-20; H.A.S.C. 106-46)
u.s. policy in the balkans
During the 106th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of U.S. policy in the Balkans, focusing on both the
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the allied
military operation against Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force).
The committee held numerous hearings and received classified
intelligence and operations briefings on the situation on the
ground with respect to ongoing peacekeeping operations in the
region and the conduct of the 78-day NATO air campaign led by
the United States. In particular, the committee focused its
attention on the continuing rotation of U.S. military forces to
Bosnia as part of the multinational Stabilization Force (SFOR)
and the impact of such troop rotations on the overall readiness
of the armed forces to execute the requirements of the national
military strategy. The committee's examination of U.S. Balkans
policy exposed continuing strains in the ability of the armed
forces to meet their warfighting requirements as a result of
the extended peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Moreover, the
committee's review of Operation Allied Force reignited debate
over the issues of NATO burdensharing, military and
technological interoperability and standardization among NATO
members, the political constraints on conducting alliance
warfare, and the post-Cold War mission of the alliance. In the
wake of the termination of the air campaign and the removal by
Serbia of its military forces from Kosovo, the committee
reviewed the Administration's plan for U.S. participation in
the multinational Kosovo Force (KFOR) peacekeeping operation
and the additional strains the Kosovo deployment imposed on the
warfighting readiness of U.S. forces. The committee also hosted
a series of classified briefings for all Members of the House
of Representatives on the Kosovo deployment.
As part of its effort to provide comprehensive oversight of
U.S. military deployments to the Balkans region, the committee
received testimony from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense officials,
the intelligence community, former military officials, and non-
governmental experts.
(H.A.S.C. 106-2; H.A.S.C. 106-12; H.A.S.C. 106-13; H.A.S.C.
106-37)
u.s. policy in the persian gulf
During the 106th Congress, the committee continued to
exercise its oversight role with respect to U.S. military
deployments in the Persian Gulf region. In particular, the
committee focused its oversight efforts on the continuing
deployment of U.S. forces in the region as part of the mission
to contain Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and
to prevent it from posing a military threat to its neighbors,
including Kuwait. The committee reviewed U.S. policy with
respect to the ``no-fly zones'' over Iraq and the ability of
U.S. forces to continue to enforce the Operation Southern Watch
mission at minimal risk, receiving a series of operational and
intelligence briefings on the situation. In addition, the
committee held hearings on March 10, 1999 and March 11, 1999
with Department of Defense and former government officials, and
outside experts, to explore U.S. policy toward Iraq. On March
15, 2000, the committee took testimony from the Commander in
Chief, U.S. Central Command, on the situation within the
Central Command area of responsibility and, in particular,
ongoing military operations with respect to Iraq.
Although the Persian Gulf War ended nearly a decade ago,
the continuing deployment of U.S. military forces in the region
in support of Operation Southern Watch poses additional strains
on the personnel and equipment involved in the enforcement
operation. Moreover, the risk to U.S. forces has increased as
Iraq has become more defiant, challenging the air exclusion
zones and allied aircraft patrolling them. In addition, the UN-
sanctioned weapons inspection regime established after the
Persian Gulf War was thwarted by Iraq when it expelled weapons
inspectors in October 1998. Although no weapons inspections
have occurred in Iraq since then, the committee has continued
to support Department of Defense efforts to provide support to
a reconstituted weapons inspection regime in short order.
Accordingly, in both the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 defense
authorization bills, the committee extended the authority of
the Secretaryof Defense to provide UN weapons inspectors in
Iraq with expertise, equipment, and materiel in support of the UN-
mandated weapons inspection mission.
(H.A.S.C. 106-2; H.A.S.C. 106-10; H.A.S.C. 106-37)
department of energy nuclear security
In the wake of serious concerns over lax security at the
nuclear weapons laboratories of the Department of Energy and
the loss of U.S. nuclear secrets by the People's Republic of
China, the committee initiated a series of efforts to improve
security and management procedures of the Department of Energy.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65) included provisions that would establish a
semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration with
clearer lines of authority and responsibility, and provided for
improvements to the counterintelligence procedures of the
Department of Energy. In addition, the committee included
provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) to further improve the
management and operations of the Department of Energy's nuclear
weapons laboratories and to ensure that U.S. nuclear secrets
are effectively safeguarded.
In addition, the committee held a series of hearings on the
security procedures at DOE laboratories. On June 24, 1999, the
committee took testimony from the Chairman of the President's
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board on the Board's
investigation into the security situation at DOE laboratories
and its recommendations for improving DOE security and
counterintelligence procedures. On July 14, 1999, the committee
took testimony from Victor H. Reis, Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Defense Programs, on reorganization plans for the
Department of Energy. On March 2, 2000, the committee took
testimony from Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson regarding
implementation of DOE reorganization and the reforms contained
in Title 32 of Public Law 106-65. Additionally, on June 14,
2000, the committee took testimony from DOE officials on
security failures at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
On June 28, 2000, the committee marked up several pieces of
legislation related to DOE safety and security, including: H.
Res. 534, a resolution expressing the sense of the House on the
security situation involving missing computer hard drives at
Los Alamos National Laboratory; H.R. 3906, a bill to codify the
authority of the Secretary of Energy to conduct independent
assessments of safeguards and security at all DOE facilities,
including facilities of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA); H.R. 4446, a bill to permit the
Secretary of Energy to assess civil penalties resulting from
Price-Anderson Act violations against NNSA contractors through
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety and
Health; H.R. 3383, a bill to eliminate the existing statutory
exemption for certain NNSA and DOE contractors from Price-
Anderson Act civil penalties; and H.R. 4737, a bill to make a
number of improvements in the classified material handling
procedures of the national security laboratories.
(H.A.S.C. 106-17; H.A.S.C. 106-47; H.A.S.C. 106-54)
ENCRYPTION, EXPORT CONTROLS, AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS
During the 106th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of the Administration's policy regarding the export
of sophisticated dual-use technologies. Controls on the export
of these technologies to countries of concern have been
progressively loosened in recent years as rapid technological
advances have increased the ability of other countries to
acquire militarily useful technologies through commercial
means.
The committee sought a better understanding of the
Administration's rationale for loosening controls over the
export of sophisticated U.S. technologies in light of concerns
that certain technologies had been diverted to inappropriate
end-users or end-uses. In particular, the committee continued
to assess the Administration's decision to progressively relax
restrictions on the export of high-performance computers to
countries of proliferation concern. In accordance with the
mechanism for relaxing such controls established by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) and subsequent amendments, the committee focused
its oversight effort on assessing each Administration-proposed
adjustment to the notification threshold established by law. On
October 28, 1999, the committee held a hearing to receive
testimony from the U.S. General Accounting Office, government
and former government officials, and industry and outside
experts on U.S. policy regarding high-performance computer
exports.
In addition, the committee assessed the impact of changes
to U.S. policy regarding the export of sophisticated encryption
products. On July 1, 1999, the committee held a hearing to
receive testimony from John J. Hamre, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, and Barbara A. McNamara, Deputy Director of the
National Security Agency, with respect to H.R. 850, the
Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act, a bill to
relax export restrictions on encryption products. The committee
continued its examination of the impact of H.R. 850 on U.S.
national security with a hearing on July 13, 1999, taking
testimony from Attorney General Janet Reno, Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director Louis J. Freeh, Department of Commerce
officials and industry representatives. In light of the
testimony received and the committee's assessment of the risks
to U.S. national security posed by the global spread of
sophisticated encryption technology, the committee
significantly amended H.R. 850 in a mark-up session on July 21,
1999.
(H.A.S.C. 106-16; H.A.S.C. 106-35)
national missile defense
The committee continued its oversight of U.S. national
missile defense (NMD) policy and programs during the 106th
Congress, holding hearings and marking up legislation in an
effort to assess the Administration's NMD plans and
architecture and to accelerate the eventual deployment of a
national missile defense system designed to protect Americans
against the growing threat of ballistic missile attack. The
committee's actions were fueled by a growing recognition of the
seriousness of the ballistic missile threat to the United
States and the acknowledgement of the Secretary of Defense
William Cohen, that ballistic missiles will soon pose a danger
to both U.S, forces overseas and to Americans domestically.
On February 25, 1999, the committee marked up H.R. 4, the
National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which declared it to be
the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile
defense as soon as is technologically possible. H.R. 4
subsequently passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into
law by the President (Public Law 106-38) on July 22, 1999.
On October 13, 1999, the committee received testimony from
Department of Defense and Department of State officials on
Administration plans for national missile defense. The
committee also heard from former government and outside experts
regarding the arms control implications of the Administration's
NMD program and constraints placed on the deployment of a
national missile defense by the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty. On June 28, 2000, the committee took
testimony from Department of Defense officials on the current
status of the NMD program and possible alternative NMD
deployment architectures.
(H.A.S.C. 106-33; H.A.S.C. 106-60)
RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
During the 106th Congress, the committee began a
systematic, in-depth examination of U.S. relations with the
People's Republic of China and, in particular, the threat posed
by the growing military capabilities of the People's Liberation
Army to the United States and U.S. interests.
On March 3, 1999, as part of the series of posture hearings
on the Administration's defense budget request, the committee
took testimony from Adm. Dennis C. Blair, Commander-in-Chief of
U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), regarding the situation in
PACOM's area of responsibility and with particular emphasis on
China. On March 15, 2000, Adm. Blair again testified on this
topic in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, PACOM.
During the second session, the committee intensified its
look at China's military strategy, policies, and programs. On
June 21, 2000, the committee held a hearing to focus on China's
overall strategic intentions and goals, receiving testimony
from Department of Defense, former military, and outside
experts. On July 19, 2000, the committee took testimony from
independent analysts on China's military modernization programs
and capabilities and the threat posed to the United States and
U.S. interests in the region, including the security of Taiwan.
(H.A.S.C. 106-2; H.A.S.C. 106-37; H.A.S.C. 106-53; H.A.S.C.
106-61)
THE SITUATION IN COLOMBIA
In light of growing concerns over the situation in Colombia
and Administration plans to increase the level of U.S. military
support to Colombia's counter-drug effort, the committee
received a briefing in closed session on October 6, 1999, from
officials of the intelligence community, Department of Defense,
and Department of State. The briefing provided the committee
with a detailed understanding of the drug trafficking threat in
Colombia and associated threats in the region. In addition, the
committee held an open hearing on March 23, 2000, to examine
U.S. policy toward Colombia, receiving testimony from
Department of Defense and Department of State officials.
THE BOMBING OF THE U.S.S. ``COLE''
The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Aden, Yemen on October
12, 2000, again focused the committee's attention on the threat
of international terrorism directed against American forces,
citizens, and interests. Subsequent to the bombing, the
committee received a series of classified briefings from
Department of Defense officials on the situation. On October
25, 2000, the committee held an open hearing with Department of
Defense and Department of State officials, followed by a closed
executive session. On October 18, 2000, the House unanimously
approved a resolution discharged from the committee, H. Res.
631, honoring the members of the crew of the guided missile
destroyer U.S.S. Cole who were killed or wounded in the
terrorist bombing attack on that vessel in Aden, Yemen, on
October 12, 2000, expressing the sympathies of the House of
Representatives to the families of those crew members,
commending the ship's crew for their heroic damage control
efforts, and condemning the bombing of that ship.
(H.A.S.C. 106-65)
Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation
The Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and
Recreation was appointed for the 106th Congress on February 5,
1999.
The panel conducted two oversight hearings during the 106th
Congress. The panel's review of the fiscal year 2000 budget
request for morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) programs was
conducted on March 10, 1999, while the review of the fiscal
year 2001 budget request was conducted on March 15, 2000. The
panel continued its oversight of the military services' MWR
programs and operations of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA)
and the military exchanges. Issues examined included the
adequacy of appropriated fund support to MWR programs; the
importance of the military resale system as a non pay benefit;
and efforts to improve the efficiency of the operation of the
commissaries, exchanges, and MWR activities.
This active oversight resulted in a number of initiatives
contained in National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001 (Public Laws 106-65 and 106-398). These
included requiring that surcharge trust funds generated by
commissary patron purchases be used solely for the construction
and renovation of commissary stores; directing the Department
of Defense to consider establishing combined exchange and
commissary stores at closed bases; encouraging service
secretaries to increase funding for MWR activities; directing a
review of the impact of slot machine use on military personnel;
and preventing the Department of Defense from tampering with
long established nonappropriated fund employee retirement
programs. Other panel initiatives included expanding of types
of merchandise that military exchanges may sell; examining
DeCA's plans to sell scanner data; and reviewing military
exchange use of consultant services. The panel also continued
its annual review of the commissary surcharge and
nonappropriated fund construction program.
(H.A.S.C. 106-8; H.A.S.C. 106-43)
Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine
The Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine was
appointed for the 106th Congress on February 5, 1999.
On March 16, 1999, the panel held a hearing to receive
testimony on the budget request for fiscal year 2000 for the
Panama Canal Commission and legislative proposals to facilitate
the orderly transfer of the canal to the government of Panama
in December 1999. Representatives from the Panama Canal
Commission testified on these matters. The panel's
recommendations were adopted by the committee on May 19, 1999
by voice vote, and were subsequently included, with amendments,
in title XXXV of Division C of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
During the March 16, 1999, hearing, the panel also received
testimony on the budget request for the Maritime Administration
for fiscal year 2000 and legislative proposals. The panel's
recommendations were adopted by the committee on May 19, 1999,
by voice vote, and were subsequently included, with amendments,
in title XXXIV of Division C of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65).
The panel's oversight responsibilities for the Panama Canal
Commission ended with the transfer of the canal to the
government of Panama in December 1999. On February 29, 2000,
the panel held a hearing to receive testimony on the budget
request for fiscal year 2001 for the Maritime Administration
and legislative proposals to facilitate its national defense
mission. On May 10, 2000, the panel's recommendations on
authorization levels and legislative provisions affecting the
Maritime Administration were adopted by voice vote, and were
subsequentlyincluded with amendments in provisions of the Floyd
D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398).
(H.A.S.C. 106-9, H.A.S.C. 106-49)
Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization
The Special Oversight Panel on Department of Energy
Reorganization was appointed on October 8, 1999, to oversee the
implementation of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) Act (Public Law 106-65). Public Law 106-65 established a
semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy to
manage the Department's nuclear weapons, nuclear
nonproliferation, and naval reactor activities.
The panel sought to determine whether DOE establishment of
the NNSA complied with the requirements of the NNSA Act and to
encourage more complete compliance when the Department's
actions were found wanting. The Secretary of Energy strongly
opposed some of the provisions of the NNSA Act, and argued that
the Act did not provide him enough authority to manage the
Administration. The President's decision in October 1999 to
assign the roles and functions of the NNSA Administrator to the
Secretary indefinitely and to assign other Department of Energy
personnel to serve concurrently in the Administration (a
practice known as ``dual-hatting'') reflected this opposition.
The panel solicited an analysis of these actions by the
Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS concluded in a report
submitted to the panel November 1, 1999, that the President was
legally required to forward a nomination for Administrator in a
timely fashion, and that dual-hatting ``is plainly contrary to
the letter and intent of the law.''
On March 2, 2000, the panel held a hearing with witnesses
from CRS, the General Accounting Office, and Center for
Strategic and International Studies. On March 16, 2000, the
panel took testimony concerning the implementation of Public
Law 106-65 from the Deputy Secretary of Energy and the Director
of the Office of Management and Administration of the
Department of Energy.
In early June 2000, DOE informed the committee of a new
security breach at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.
This breach led to hearings regarding the management of the
nuclear weapons complex and implementation of Public Law 106-65
by the Secretary of Energy. While the special oversight panel
has no legislative authority, the panel supported full
committee efforts to craft an effective ban on dual-hatting,
and other provisions to provide a fixed term of office for the
first Administrator of the NNSA and restrict the ability of the
Secretary to reorganize NNSA. These provisions were adopted in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(Public Law 106-398).
On July 11, 2000, the panel held a hearing with the new
Administrator of the NNSA. He indicated in his testimony that
he planned to eliminate dual-hatting, streamline NNSA
management, and put into place more effective planning,
programming and budgeting procedures.
On October 13, 2000, the panel issued a report assessing
progress toward establishment of the NNSA in the year since
enactment of Public Law 106-65. The report concluded that
progress toward full implementation of the law was inhibited by
obstacles erected by DOE leadership, but that confirmation of
the Administrator of the NNSA and the removal of some of the
obstacles established the conditions under which progress could
be made.
(H.A.S.C. 106-48; H.A.S.C. 106-58)
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism
The Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism was appointed for
the 106th Congress on March 2, 2000. The panel was charged with
responsibility for conducting oversight on the nature of the
terrorist threat facing the U.S. national security interests
and the armed forces, including the threat of terrorism using
weapons of mass destruction. During the year, the panel focused
its activities on gaining a greater understanding of
unconventional terrorist threats, including biological,
nuclear, and cyberterrorism threats. In addition, the panel
sought to explore the regional underpinnings of terrorism and
the threats posed to U.S. interests in various regions of the
world.
The panel conducted three closed briefings and three open
hearings during the 106th Congress. After an initial
organizational meeting on March 16, 2000, the panel held a
closed briefing on terrorist threats to the United States on
May 23, 2000. Additional closed briefings took place on June
20, 2000, and July 11, 2000, with testimony taken from the U.S.
intelligence community on regional terrorist threats to U.S.
interests. The panel also convened in closed session on October
18, 2000, to take testimony from the intelligence community
regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen. The
panel's three open hearings were held on May 23, 2000, June 29,
2000, and July 13, 2000, concerning biological, nuclear, and
cyberterrorism threats, and threats to U.S. interests in Latin
America and the Middle East, respectively.
(H.A.S.C. 106-52; H.A.S.C. 106-56; H.A.S.C. 106-59)
OTHER ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities
held several hearings in support of its consideration of the
fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
military construction, military family housing, and other
related programs of the Department of Defense and the military
services. In addition to its consideration of the annual budget
request, the subcommittee considered and reported legislation
in each session of the 106th Congress, which was included in
division B of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) and division B of the National
Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398). In both instances, the legislation included alterations
to the management of the military construction program and the
military family housing program, modifications of the defense
base closure and realignment process, and provisions affecting
the conveyance, exchange, transfer of jurisdiction, or
modification to existing statutory authority on the disposition
of real property. The subcommittee reported legislation to
reauthorize the Sikes Act. In its consideration of that
legislation, the subcommittee took testimony from senior
officials of the Department of Defense and senior officials and
active and reserve component officers of the Department of
Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the
Navy, including the Marine Corps, the Department of the Air
Force, the General Accounting Office, and members of Congress.
The subcommittee met on March 9, 1999, and March 16, 2000,
to conduct oversight hearings on the implementation by the
Department of Defense and the military departments of the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (subchapter IV,
chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code). In its hearing of
March 16, 2000, the subcommittee also considered, as a matter
of oversight, the implementation by the Department of Defense
and military departments of the utilities infrastructure
privatization and asset management practices. In both stances,
the subcommittee took testimony from senior officials of the
Department of Defense and the military services.
The subcommittee met on March 16, 1999, to conduct an
oversight hearing to assess the military construction component
of the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and the adequacy of the
FYDP in addressing future facilities recapitalization and
modernization requirements. The subcommittee took testimony
from a senior official of the Department of Defense and senior
officers of the military services and Admiral Jack E.
Buffington (retired), Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Arkansas.
The subcommittee met on March 16, 1999, to conduct an
oversight hearing on the use of economic development
conveyances in the reuse of former military installations and
proposals to improve the base reuse process. The subcommittee
took testimony from senior officials from the Department of
Defense, the General Accounting Office, Mr. Michael Houlemard,
Executive Officer, Fort Ord Reuse Authority, Mr. Jeffery Simon,
Board President, National Association of Installation
Developers, Honorable Gene Stedham, Mayor of the City of
Anniston, Alabama, Mr. Chris Waddle, Past President, Anniston/
Calhoun County Council of Unified Leadership and members of
Congress.
(H.A.S.C. 106-7; H.A.S.C. 106-42)
Military Personnel Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a series of
hearings to review the manpower portion of the fiscal years
2000 and 2001 defense budget requests and to conduct oversight:
February 22, 1999, understanding the retention issues; February
25, 1999, pay and retirement reform issues; March 4, 1999,
pilot retention--issues and possible solutions; March 10, 1999,
pharmacy redesign and TRICARE claims processing; March 17,
1999, report of the Congressional Commission on Military
Training and Gender-Related Issues; March 18, 1999, recruiting
issues; September 30, 1999; Department of Defense Anthrax
Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP); November 4, 1999, report
of the United States Commission on National Security/21st
Century; February 25, 2000, February 28, 2000 and March 15,
2000, removing the barriers to TRICARE; March 8, 2000 and March
17, 2000, sustaining the all volunteer force and reserve
component issues; July 13, 2000, Department of Defense Anthrax
Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP); November 28, 2000,
proposals to transform the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC). Staff briefings held: February 5, 1999,
domestic violence in the military service; February 26, 1999,
military child development system; and September 16, 1999,
Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program
(AVIP).
(H.A.S.C. 106-6; H.A.S.C. 106-22; H.A.S.C. 106-26; H.A.S.C.
106-41; H.A.S.C. 106-62; H.A.S.C. 106-66)
Military Procurement Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Military Procurement addressed the
Department of Defense's (DOD) modernization shortfalls and the
Department of Energy's (DOE) management and security problems
by conducting numerous oversight hearings during its
consideration of the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001
budget requests, including: February 11, 1999, protection
equipment and countermeasure devices; February 23, 1999 (joint
hearing with the Subcommittee on Military Research and
Development), information superiority and information
assurance; February 24, 1999, aging military equipment; March
3, 1999 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development), aviation modernization plans; March
4, 1999, and March 21, 2000, DOE programs; March 9, 1999,
littoral warfare protection and ship recapitalization; April
15, 1999, counterintelligence problems at DOE laboratories;
June 30, 1999, performance of the B-2 bomber in the Kosovo air
campaign; October 19, 1999, lessons learned from the Kosovo
conflict-implications for future modernization plans; October
20, 1999 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development), chemical and biological weapons
threat to U.S. forces; October 20, 1999, DOE security issues;
February 16, 2000 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Military Research and Development), ballistic missile defense
programs; February 29, 2000, shipbuilding programs; March 9,
2000 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Military Research
and Development), Army programs and transformation; March 14,
2000 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Military Research
and Development), Navy programs; March 16, 2000 (joint hearing
with the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development),
Air Force programs; June 27, 2000, attack submarine force
structure modernization plans; September 21, 2000, DOD
procurement requirements and funding; and September 21, 2000,
chemical agents and munitions destruction program.
In addition to these oversight hearings, on June 29, 1999,
the subcommittee held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Military Research and Development and with the Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, on space range
modernization.
(H.A.S.C. 106-3; H.A.S.C. 106-11; H.A.S.C. 106-15; H.A.S.C.
106-21; H.A.S.C. 106-23; H.A.S.C. 106-24; H.A.S.C. 106-28;
H.A.S.C. 106-29; H.A.S.C. 106-30; H.A.S.C. 106-36; H.A.S.C.
106-38; H.A.S.C. 106-50; H.A.S.C. 106-63; 106-64)
Military Readiness Subcommittee
During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Military
Readiness reviewed the operations and maintenance portion of
the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 Department of Defense
authorization requests and held numerous hearings within its
jurisdiction. Major areas of the subcommittee's examinations
included: military readiness trends and perspectives; military
readiness reporting systems and procedures; defense reform
initiatives; contracting out and privatization initiatives of
the Department of Defense; repair depot and shipyard
maintenance issues; Department of Defense acquisition
workforce; operation and maintenance financial management
issues; mission capability rates; spare and repair parts
shortfalls; improving readiness capabilities; military training
and combat training facilities issues; quarterly readiness
reports; assessing the readiness of reserve forces;
environmental restoration and compliance issues; Armed Forces
Retirement Homes issues; a review of proposed changes and pilot
programs concerning the movement of household goods of military
personnel; and issues concerning the Naval Petroleum and Oil
Shale Reserves and the National Defense Stockpile of strategic
and critical materials. In addition, the subcommittee conducted
a series of field hearings at the following locations: Norfolk
Naval Station, Virginia; Naples, Italy; and Nellis Air Force
Base, Nevada.
The subcommittee undertook a detailed and extensive
examination of issues concerning the outsourcing of information
technology by the Navy and the Marine Corps to the private
sector which culminated in a major legislative initiative in
this area. In addition, the subcommittee conducted an in-depth
review of the quality of training at the military services'
combat training centers which culminated in the recommendation
of significant additional funding for these training centers;
and a review of the issues concerning the aging civilian
workforce of the Department of Defense.
In the second session of the 106th Congress, the
subcommittee approved a legislative package to permit the
transfer of the Naval Oil Shale Reserve numbered 2, located in
Utah, to the Ute Indian Tribe which also provided for the
potential cleanup of hazardous materials at a former uranium
mining site at Moab, Utah.
(H.A.S.C. 106-5; H.A.S.C. 106-18; H.A.S.C. 106-19; H.A.S.C.
106-25; H.A.S.C. 106-27; H.A.S.C. 106-40; H.A.S.C. 106-45;
H.A.S.C. 106-57)
Military Research and Development Subcommittee
The Subcommittee on Military Research and Development (R&D)
conducted numerous oversight hearings to review programs
included in the Department of Defense research and development
budget requests for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 during the 106th
Congress. In addition to traditional budget oversight reviews,
the Subcommittee held a number of hearings, several conducted
jointly with the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, to
address specific areas of concern.
The subcommittee held the following hearings: Defense
Information Superiority and Information Assurance--Entering the
21st Century, Ballistic Missile Defense Programs, Service
Aviation Modernization Plans (joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Procurement), Domestic Emergency Preparedness
for Response to Threats of Terrorist Use of Weapons of Mass
Destruction, Range modernization (joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Procurement and the Committee on Science),
Range Modernization (joint hearing with the Committee on
Science), Electromagnetic Pulse Threats to U.S. Military and
Civilian Infrastructure, Chemical/Biological Defense for U.S.
Forces, Russian Threat Perceptions And Plans For Sabotage
Against The United States, Ballistic Missile Defense Programs,
Defense Wide Research & Development Programs, Information
Assurance and Information Superiority: Meeting the Challenges
of the 21st Century, Army Programs and Transformation for
Fiscal Year 2001 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Procurement), Navy and Marine Corps Modernization Programs for
Fiscal Year 2001 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Procurement), Air Force Modernization Programs for Fiscal Year
2001 (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Procurement),
Oversight Hearing on the National Ocean Research Leadership
Council Report, An Integrated Ocean Observing System (joint
hearing with the Committee on Resources), and National Missile
Defense--Reviewing the Technical Status.
The subcommittee also conducted hearings and briefings
during the 106th Congress to address concerns over inadequate
future year funding for the service's science and technology
programs and to conclude efforts initiated during the 104th
Congress to streamline the Department's ineffective Defense
Airborne Reconnaissance Office and revitalize the military
service unmanned aerial vehicles programs. The subcommittee
also received testimony on the Administration's program for
critical infrastructure protection, information superiority for
the 21st century battlefield, and the status of the defense
science and technology base. The committee continues to be
concerned about the serious decline in research and development
funding, specifically science and technology accounts, which
are critical to maintaining US superiority. Accordingly, the
committee allocated an increase in funding for research,
development, test, and evaluation, rather than the decrease
reflected in the budget request.
(H.A.S.C. 106-4; H.A.S.C. 106-31; H.A.S.C. 106-32; H.A.S.C.
106-36; H.A.S.C. 106-39; H.A.S.C. 106-45; H.A.S.C. 106-50;
H.A.S.C. 106-51; H.A.S.C. 106-55)
PUBLICATIONS
Committee Prints of Laws Relating to National Defense
To assist individuals in referencing statutes that are
frequently under consideration by the Committee on Armed
Services and the Department of Defense and others in looking
for statutory guidance, the committee printed three volumes
pertaining to current law in the 106th Congress:
Title 10, United States Code--Armed Forces (as
amended through December 31, 1998).
Compilation of Defense-Related Federal Laws (other
than title 10, United States Code) (as amended through
December 31, 1998).
Laws Relating to Federal Procurement (as amended
through December 31, 1999).
(Committee Prints 2, 3 and 4)
Committee Prints
1. Committee rules, adopted January--20, 1999.
2. Title 10, United States Code--Armed Forces (as amended
through December 31, 1998). February 1999.
3. Compilation of Defense-Related Federal Laws (other than
title 10, United States Code) (as amended through December 31,
1998). February 1999.
4. Laws Relating to Federal Procurement (as amended through
December 31, 1999). February 2000.
5. A Ceremony Unveiling the Portrait of The Honorable Floyd
D. Spence. September 25, 2000.
Published Proceedings
H.A.S.C. 106-1--Full committee hearing on committee
organization. January 20, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-2--Full Committee hearings on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000--H.R. 1401 and Oversight
of Previously Authorized Programs. February 2, 24, March 3, 11,
17, and 25, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-3--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearings
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000--
H.R. 1401 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs,
Title I--Procurement. February 24 and March 9, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-4--Military Research and Development
Subcommittee hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000--H.R. 1401 and Oversight of Previously
Authorized Programs, Title II--Research and Development, Test,
and Evaluation. February 25 and March 11, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-5--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearings on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000--H.R.
1401 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title
III--Operation and Maintenance, Volumes 1 and 2. February 24,
25, 26, March 2, 4, 8, 17, 18, and 22, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-6--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearings on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000--H.R.
1401 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title
IV--Personnel Authorizations, Title V--Military Personnel
Policy, Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits,
and Title VII--Health Care Provisions. February 22, 25, March
4, 10, 17, and 18, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-7--Military Installations and Facilities
Subcommittee hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000--H.R. 1401 and Oversight of Previously
Authorized Programs, Division B--Military Construction
Authorizations. February 25, March 2, 9, 16, and July 1, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-8--Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare,
and Recreation hearing on National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000--H.R. 1401 and Oversight of Previously
Authorized Programs. March 10, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-9--Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant
Marine hearing on the Fiscal Year 2000 Maritime Administration
request and related matters and the Fiscal Year 2000 (First
Quarter) Panama Canal Commission authorization request and
related matters. March 16, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-10--Full Committee hearing on United States
policy toward Iraq. March 10, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-11--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on protection equipment and countermeasure devices. February
11, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-12--Full Committee hearing on the United
States and NATO military operations against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. April 28, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-13--Full Committee hearing on the United
States policy toward Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. April 15,
1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-14--Full Committee hearing on the state of
United States military forces. January 20, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-15--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on the Department of Defense activities budget for Fiscal Year
2000 and related matters. March 4, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-16--Full Committee hearing on U.S. encryption
policy. July 1 and 13, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-17--Full Committee hearing on Department of
Energy reorganization. June 24 and July 14, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-18--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearing on
the readiness of Army AH-64 Apache helicopter fleet. July 1,
1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-19--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearing on
implications concerning the Atlantic Fleet Training Center,
Vieques, Puerto Rico. September 22, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-20--Full Committee hearing on the Phase One
Report of the United States Commission on National Security/
21st Century. October 5, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-21--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on the recent counterintelligence problems at Department of
Energy laboratories. April 15, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-22--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
the Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program.
September 30, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-23--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearings
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000--
H.R. 1401 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs.
February 23 and March 3, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-24--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on the performance of the B-2 Bomber in the Kosovo Air
Campaign. June 30, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-25--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearing on
spare and repair parts shortages. October 7, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-26--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
the trends in the U.S. domestic future and implications for
national security--A report on the National Security Study
Group, United States Commission on National Security/21st
Century. November 4, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-27--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearing on
operations in Kosovo: problems encountered and lessons learned
and reconstruction. October 26, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-28--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on Department of Energy security issues. October 20, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-29--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on lessons learned from the Kosovo conflict--the effect of the
operation on both deployed/non-deployed forces and on future
modernization plans. October 19, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-30--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on the results of Department of Energy's Inspector General
inquiries into specific aspects of the espionage investigation
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. November 10, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-31--Military Research and Development
Subcommittee hearing on the electromagnetic pulse threats to
U.S. military and civilian infrastructure. October 7, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-32--Military Research and Development
Subcommittee hearing on Russian threat perceptions and plans
for sabotage against the United States. October 26, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-33--Full Committee hearing on U.S. National
Missile Defense policy and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
October 13, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-34--Full Committee hearing on Military
Services' posture, readiness, and budget issues. October 21,
1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-35--Full Committee hearing on U.S. policy
regarding high-performance computer exports. October 28, 1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-36--Military Research and Development and
Military Procurement Subcommittees, and Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee of the Committee on Science joint hearings on
range modernization, Parts 1 and 2. March 24, and June 29,
1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-37--Full Committee hearings on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--H.R. 4205, and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs. February 9, 10,
17, March 15, 22, and 23, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-38--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearings
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--
H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs,
Title I--Procurement. February 29 and June 27, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-39--Military Research and Development
Subcommittee hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001--H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously
Authorized Programs, Title II--Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation. March 1, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-40--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearings
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--
H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs,
Title III--Operation and Maintenance. February 29, March 1, and
9, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-41--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearings
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--
H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs,
Title IV--Personnel Authorizations, Title V--Military Personnel
Policy, Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits,
and Title VII--Health Care Provisions. February 25, 28, March
8, 15, and 17, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-42--Military Installations and Facilities
Subcommittee hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001--H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously
Authorized Programs, Division B--Military Construction
Authorizations. March 2, 9, and 16, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-43--Special Oversight Panel on Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--H.R. 4205 and Oversight
of Previously Authorized Programs. March 15, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-44--Full Committee hearing on Military
Services' posture, readiness, and budget issues. September 27,
2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-45--Military Research and Development
Subcommittee and Military Readiness Subcommittee joint hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--
H.R. 4205 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs,
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation and Title
III--Operation and Maintenance. March 8, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-46--Full Committee hearing on the adequacy of
the defense budget. February 8, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-47--Full Committee hearing on the
implementation of Title XXXII of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. March 2, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-48--Special Oversight Panel on Department of
Energy Reorganization hearings on National Nuclear Security
Administration. March 2 and 16, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-49--Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant
Marine hearing on Fiscal Year 2001 Maritime Administration
authorization request and related matters. February 29, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-50--Military Procurement Subcommittee and
Military Research and Development Subcommittee joint hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--Title
I--Procurement and Title II--Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation. February 16, March 9, 14, and 16, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-51--Military Procurement Subcommittee and
Military Research and Development Subcommittee joint hearing on
chemical and biological defense for U.S. forces. October 20,
1999.
H.A.S.C. 106-52--Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism
hearing on terrorist threats to the United States. May 23,
2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-53--Full Committee hearing on China's
strategic intentions and goals. June 21, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-54--Full Committee hearing on security
failures at Los Alamos National Laboratory. June 14, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-55--Military Research and Development
Subcommittee hearing on National Missile Defense: Reviewing its
technical status. June 22, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-56--Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism
hearing on terrorism and threats to U.S. interests in Latin
America. June 29, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-57--Military Readiness Subcommittee hearing on
defense logistics reengineering initiatives. June 27, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-58--Special Oversight Panel on Department of
Energy Reorganization hearing on status of National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). July 11, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-59--Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism
hearing on terrorism and threats to U.S. interests in the
Middle East. July 13, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-60--Full Committee hearing on U.S. plans and
policy regarding National Missile Defense. June 28, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-61--Full Committee hearing on military
capabilities of the People's Republic of China. July 19, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-62--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program
(AVIP). July 13, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-63--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on the status of military procurement requirements and funding.
September 21, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-64--Military Procurement Subcommittee hearing
on Department of Defense Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction Program. September 21, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-65--Full Committee hearing on the attack on
U.S.S. Cole. October 25, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-66--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
proposals to transform the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC). November 28, 2000.
H.A.S.C. 106-67--Department of Energy budget request
(defense programs) for fiscal year 2001 and related matters.
March 21, 2000.
HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report number Date filed Bill number Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106-39, part 1............... Mar. 2, 1999................. H.R. 4...................... To declare it to be
the policy of the
United States to
deploy a national
missile defense.
106-117, part 4.............. July 23, 1999................ H.R. 850.................... To amend title 18,
United States Code,
to affirm the
rights of United
States persons to
use and sell
Encryption and to
relax export
Controls on
encryption.
106-162...................... May 24, 1999................. H.R. 1401................... To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for
military activities
of the Department
of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths
for fiscal years
2000 and 2001, and
for other purposes.
106-301...................... Aug. 6, 1999................. H.R. 1401 Conf. Rept........ To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for
military activities
of the Department
of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths
for fiscal years
2000 and 2001, and
for other purposes.
106-616...................... May 12, 1999................. H.R. 4205................... To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal year 2001
for military
activities of the
Department of
Defense, to
prescribe military
Personnel strengths
for fiscal year
2001, and for other
purposes.
106-694, part 2.............. July 21, 1999................ H.R. 4446................... To ensure that the
Secretary of Energy
may continue to
exercise Certain
authorities under
the Price-Anderson
Act through the
Assistant Secretary
of Energy for
Environment,
Safety, and Health.
106-695, part 2.............. July 21, 1999................ H.R. 3383................... To amend the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954
to remove separate
treatment or
exemption for
nuclear safety
violations by
nonprofit
institutions.
106-696, part 2.............. July 12, 1999................ H.R. 3906................... To ensure that the
Department of
Energy has
appropriate
mechanisms to
independently
assess the
effectiveness of
its policy and site
performance in the
areas of safeguards
and security and
cyber security
106-730...................... July 12, 2000................ H. Res. 534................. Expressing the sense
of the House of
Representatives
that the recent
nuclear weapons
security failures
at Los Alamos
National Laboratory
demonstrate that
security policy and
security procedures
within the National
Nuclear Security
Administration
remain inadequate,
that the
individuals
responsible for
such policy and
procedure must be
held accountable
for their
performance, and
that immediate
action must be
taken to correct
security
deficiencies.
106-945...................... Oct. 6, 2000................. H.R. 4205 Conf. Rept........ To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal year 2001
for military
activities of the
Department of
Defense, to
prescribe military
Personnel strengths
for fiscal year
2001, and for other
purposes.
106-1035, part 1............. Dec. 15, 2000................ H.R. 4737................... To require an
inventory of
documents and
devices containing
Restricted Data at
the national
security
laboratories of the
Department of
Energy, to improve
security procedures
for access to the
vaults containing
Restricted Data at
those laboratories,
and for other
purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law number Date approved Bill number Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106-38....................... July 22, 1999................ H.R. 4...................... To declare it to be
the policy of the
United States to
deploy a national
missile defense.
106-65....................... Oct. 5, 1999................. H.R. 1401 (S. 1059)......... To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for
military activities
of the Department
of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths
for fiscal years
2000 and 2001, and
for other purposes
106-120...................... Dec. 3, 1999................. H.R. 1555................... To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal year 2000
for intelligence
and intelligence-
related activities
of the United
States Government,
the Community
Management Account,
and the Central
Intelligence Agency
Retirement and
Disability System,
and for other
purposes.
106-195...................... May 2, 2000.................. H.J. Res. 86................ Recognizing the 50th
anniversary of the
Korean War and the
service by members
of the Armed
Services during
such war, and for
other purposes.
106-227...................... June 29, 2000................ H.J. Res. 101............... Recognizing the
225th Birthday of
the United States
Army.
106-398...................... Oct. 30, 2000................ H.R. 4205................... To authorize
appropriations for
fiscal year 2001
for military
activities of the
Department of
Defense, for
military
construction, and
for defense
activities for the
Department of
Energy, to
prescribe personnel
strengths for such
fiscal year of the
Armed Forces, and
for other purposes.
106-419...................... Nov. 1, 2000................. S. 1402..................... To amend title 38,
United States Code,
to enhance programs
providing education
benefits for
veterans, and for
other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASES
First Session
January 7, 1999--Chairman Spence Announces Leadership of
the House Armed Services Committee.
January 20, 1999--Chairman Spence's Remarks upon
Organization of the Armed Services Committee.
January 20, 1999--Chairman Spence's Opening Statement at
Full Committee Hearing with General Shelton and the Service
Chiefs.
January 25, 1999--Chairman Spence and Ranking Member
Skelton Announce Subcommittee Assignments.
February 1999--National Security Report--The FY2000 Defense
Budget: Gambling with America's Defense.
February 1, 1999--The President's Defense Budget: Short of
the Requirement and High on Risk.
February 2, 1999--Chairman Spence's Statement at Full
Committee Hearing on FY 2000 Budget Hearing with Secretary
Cohen and General Shelton.
February 5, 1999--Chairman Spence and Ranking Member
Skelton Announce Panel Assignments.
February 18, 1999--Press Advisory: House Armed Services
Subcommittee to Conduct Field Hearing in Norfolk, VA.
February 19, 1999--Press Advisory: House Armed Services
Subcommittee to Conduct Field Hearing at Nellis, Air Force
Base.
February 24, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing with Service Chiefs.
February 24, 1999--Chairman Spence Calls State of Aging and
Obsolete Equipment ``Irresponsible''.
February 25, 1999--Service Chiefs: Ability to Execute
National Military Strategy Remains ``High-Risk''.
February 25, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Markup of H.R. 4.
February 25, 1999--Armed Services Committee Reports
Bipartisan National Missile Defense Policy Bill.
February 25, 1999--H.R. 4: A Bill Declaring it to be the
Policy of the United States to Deploy a National Missile
Defense.
March 2, 1999--House Armed Services Subcommittee to Assess
the Readiness of U.S. Military Forces in Europe at Field
Hearing at Naples, Italy.
March 3, 1999--Chairman Spence Calls for Increased Defense
Spending to Address Critical Unfunded Requirements.
March 3, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Hearing with Admiral Blair and General Tilelli.
March 10, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on U.S. Policy on Iraq (Day 1 of 2).
March 11, 1999--Spence on Kosovo: ``The Wrong Commitment at
the Wrong Time for the Wrong Reasons''.
March 11, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on U.S. Policy on Iraq (Day 2 of 2).
March 11, 1999--Chairman Spence Appoints House Armed
Services Committee Vice-Chairs.
March 16, 1999--House Armed Services Subcommittee to
Conduct Field Hearing in Norfolk.
March 17, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on U.S. Policy in the Balkans.
March 24, 1999--Floor Statement of Chairman Spence on the
Resolution in Support of U.S. Troops in Operations Against
Yugoslavia.
March 25, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing with Service Secretaries.
April 1999--Military Readiness Review--Kosovo and the
National Military Strategy: The costs of doing more with less.
April 10, 1999--Chairman Spence Leads Delegation to
Macedonia.
April 15, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing with Secretary Cohen and General Shelton
on Kosovo.
April 28, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing with Outside Witnesses on Options in
Kosovo.
April 28, 1999--Floor Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R.
1569: A Bill Prohibiting the use of DOD Funds for U.S. Ground
Forces in Yugoslavia.
May 1999--Defense Quotables--Military Readiness: The Strain
is Showing.
May 5, 1999--Spence Questions Utility of Some Cooperative
Threat Reduction Projects.
May 19, 1999--House Armed Services Committee Reports H.R.
1401: FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Bill.
May 19, 1999--Chairman Spence's Statement and Summary of
H.R. 1401 as Reported.
May 19, 1999--Correction to Summary of H.R. 1401.
May 19, 1999--H.R. 1401 as Reported by the House Armed
Services Committee.
May 20, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R. 4: The
National Missile Defense Act of 1999.
May 25, 1999--Spence Reaction on Release of the Cox
Committee Report.
June 9, 1999--Floor Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R.
1401: FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act.
June 10, 1999--House Approves Funding to Improve Military
Quality of Life, Readiness and Equipment Modernization
Programs.
June 24, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence on the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board on the Security
Problems at the U.S. Department of Energy.
June 30, 1999--Kosovo Backgrounder.
July 1999--Military Readiness Review--The U.S. Air Force
and Kosovo: Readiness strained to the limit.
July 1, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R. 850: a
Bill to Amend Title 18, United States Code, to Affirm the
Rights of United States Persons to Use and Sell Encryption and
to Relax Export Controls on Encryption.
July 13, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R. 850, a
bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to affirm the
rights of United States persons to use and sell encryption and
to relax export controls on encryption.
July 14, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence on Department
of Energy Reorganization.
July 21, 1999--Armed Services Committee Adopts Amendment to
Encryption Bill Ensuring That National Security, Law
Enforcement Remain Priority.
July 21, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Markup of H.R. 850.
July 21, 1999--Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
H.R. 850 Adopted by the House Armed Services Committee.
August 1999--National Security Report--Communiques and
Treaties are Poor Shields: Implications of the U.S.-Russian
Joint Statement on the ABM and START III Treaties.
August 5, 1999--Conferees Reach Agreement on FY 2000
Defense Authorization Bill.
August 5, 1999--House, Senate Reach Agreement on Energy
Department Reorganization.
September 1999--National Security Report--Reforming the
Department of Energy: Safeguarding America's Nuclear Secrets.
September 1999--Defense Quotables--Department of Energy:
Time for Reform.
September 15, 1999--Prepared Remarks of Chairman Floyd
Spence on Conference Report.
October 5, 1999--President Endorses Congressional Actions
on Defense Bill.
October 5, 1999--Spence Appoints Panel to Oversee
Implementation of DOE Reorganization.
October 5, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on Hart-Rudman Commission Report.
October 12, 1999--Spence to President: Signing Statement
Inconsistent with Law, Will Delay Overdue DOE Management and
Nuclear Security Reforms.
October 13, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on U.S National Missile Defense Policy
and the ABM Treaty.
October 19, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence on Vieques:
Critical to Military Readiness.
October 20, 1999--Statement of Chairman Spence:
Supercomputer Export Review Process Works.
October 20, 1999--GAO Report NSIAD-99-208--Export Controls:
1998 Legislative Mandate for High Performance Computers.
October 21, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing with Military Service Chiefs.
October 28, 1999--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on U.S. Policy on Supercomputer Exports.
November 18, 1999--Defense Accomplishments of the 104th,
105th, and 106th Congresses.
Second Session
February 2000--Department of Energy National Nuclear
Security Administration Implementation Plan: An Assessment.
February 2000--National Security Report--The Fiscal Year
2001 Defense Budget: The Mismatch between Strategy, Resources,
and Forces Continues.
February 2, 2000--Spence Announces HASC Staff Director's
Departure.
February 8, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on the CSIS ``Defense Train Wreck''
Report.
February 9, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request.
February 10, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
the Full Committee Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request with Military Service
Chiefs.
February 16, 2000--Opening Statement of Subcommittee
Chairman Weldon at the Joint Procurement and Research &
Development Subcommittees Hearing on Ballistic Missile Defense
Programs.
February 17, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
the Full Committee Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2001 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request with General Wesley Clark.
February 18, 2000--House Armed Services Committee to
Conduct Field Hearing at Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana.
February 22, 2000--House Armed Services Committee to
Conduct Field Hearing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
February 28, 2000--Spence Calls for Increased Defense
Spending to Address Critical Unfunded Requirements.
February 29, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Bateman at
Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine hearing on the
FY 2001 Maritime Administration Authorization Request and
Related Matters.
February 29, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Bateman at
Military Readiness Subcommittee Hearing on the Adequacy of the
FY 2001 Budget Request to Meet Readiness Needs.
February 29, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement Subcommittee Hearing on Navy Shipbuilding
Programs.
March 2000--Military Readiness Review--Vieques Training
Facilities: Vital to U.S. military readiness.
March 1, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Weldon at
Military Research & Development Hearing on Defense-Wide
Research and Development Programs.
March 1, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Bateman at
Military Readiness Subcommittee Hearing on Real Property
Maintenance and Infrastructure Funding.
March 3, 2000--Chairman Spence Appoints Committee Panel to
Assess Terrorist Threats.
March 3, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hefley at
Military Installations & Facilities Subcommittee Hearing on the
FY 2001 Budget Request for Military Construction and Military
Family Housing of the Department of Defense.
March 3, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Hearing on Implementation of Department of Energy
Reorganization and Reforms Contained in Title XXXII of the FY
2000 National Defense Authorization Act.
March 8, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Bateman at
Military Readiness and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Information Superiority and Information Assurance.
March 8, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Weldon at
Military Readiness and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Information Superiority and Information Assurance.
March 8, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Buyer at
Military Personnel Subcommittee Hearing on the All Volunteer
Force and Reserve Component Overview.
March 9, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Army Programs and Transformation.
March 9, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Weldon at
Military Procurement and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Army Programs and Transformation.
March 9, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Bateman at
Military Readiness and Civil Service Subcommittees Hearing on
Civilian Personnel Readiness.
March 9, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hefley at
Military Installations & Facilities Subcommittee Hearing on the
FY 2001 Budget Request for DOD Military Construction and Family
Housing Programs.
March 14, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Navy and Marine Corps Programs.
March 15, 2000--GAO Report Raises Questions About Usage of
Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds.
March 15, 2000--GAO Report--Cooperative Threat Reduction:
DOD's 1997-98 Reports on Accounting for Assistance were Late
and Incomplete.
March 15, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing with the Regional Commanders on the FY
2001 Budget Request.
March 15, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman McHugh at
Morale, Welfare & Recreation Panel Hearing on Resale Systems
and Programs.
March 15, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Buyer at
Personnel Subcommittee Hearing on Removing the Barriers to
TRICARE.
March 16, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hefley at
Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee Hearing on
Implementation of the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative, Utilities Infrastructure Privatization, and Asset
Management Practices of the Military Departments.
March 16, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Air Force Programs.
March 16, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Weldon at
Military Procurement and Research & Development Subcommittees
Hearing on Air Force Programs.
March 21, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement Subcommittee Hearing on the Department of
Energy FY 2001 Budget Request for Defense Programs and Related
Matters.
March 22, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on the FY 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act.
March 23, 2000--Spence Reacts to Patriot Missile (PAC-2)
Failure.
March 23, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on U.S. Policy Towards Colombia.
April 13, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman McHugh at
Morale, Welfare & Recreation Panel Consideration of H.R. 4205:
FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.
April 19, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on Release of
the Commission on National Security/21st Century Phase II
Report.
May 2000--National Security Report--China in the
Ascendancy: A Growing Threat to U.S. Security?
May 2, 2000--Statement of Chairman Hefley at Military
Installations and Facilities Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 4205.
May 3, 2000--GAO Report: CTR Biological Weapon
Proliferation Prevention Program ``Poses New Risks'' to the
United States.
May 3, 2000--GAO Report: Biological Weapons: Effort to
Reduce Former Soviet Threat Offers Benefits, Poses New Risks.
May 4, 2000--Statement of Chairman Bateman at Military
Readiness Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 4205.
May 4, 2000--Statement of Chairman Buyer at Military
Personnel Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 4205.
May 4, 2000--Chart Summary of Personnel Subcommittee Mark.
May 9, 2000--Statement of Chairman Hunter at Military
Procurement Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 4205.
May 9, 2000--Statement of Chairman Weldon at Military
Research & Development Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 4205.
May 10, 2000--H.R. 4205: The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001--Summary of Committee Markup.
May 10, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence at Markup.
May 10, 2000--Statement of Chairman Hefley at Markup.
May 10, 2000--Statement of Chairman McHugh at Markup.
May 10, 2000--Statement of Chairman Bateman at Markup.
May 10, 2000--Statement of Chairman Buyer at Markup.
May 15, 2000--GAO Report on ``Volatile'' Balkans Raises
Further Questions About U.S. Military Involvement in the
Region.
May 15, 2000--GAO Report: Balkans Security--Current and
Projected Factors Affecting Regional Stability.
May 17, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence at General Floor
Debate on H.R. 4205.
May 17, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on Dreier
Amendment at General Floor Debate on H.R. 4205.
May 18, 2000--House Approves Funding to Improve Military
Quality of Life, Readiness and Equipment Modernization
Programs.
May 18, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on Moakley
Amendment at General Floor Debate on H.R. 4205.
May 23, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Saxton at
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism Hearing on Terrorist
Threats to the United States.
May 25, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Weldon at Joint
Military Research & Development and Fisheries, Conservation,
Wildlife & Oceans (Resources Committee) Hearing on the
Integrated Ocean Observing System.
June 5, 2000--Congress Appoints Members to Commission to
Assess United States National Security Space Management and
Organization.
June 13, 2000--Statement of Chairman Floyd Spence on H.J.
Res. 101: Commemorating the Army's 225th Birthday.
June 14, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Hearing on Security Failures at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
June 21, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Hearing on Strategic Intentions and Goals of China.
June 21, 2000--Press Advisory: Press Conference on DOD
Management of Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program.
June 22, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Weldon at
Research & Development Subcommittee Hearing on the Technical
Status of the National Missile Defense Program.
June 27, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Bateman at
Readiness Subcommittee Hearing on Defense Logistics
Reengineering Initiatives.
June 27, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Procurement Subcommittee Hearing on Submarine Force Structure
and Modernization.
June 28, 2000--Armed Services Committee Calls for Clear
Accountability on Nuclear Weapons Security.
June 28, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Mark Up of H. Res. 534 and H.R. 3906, 4446, 3383 and
4737.
June 28, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on H. Res. 534.
June 28, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R. 3906.
June 28, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on H.R. 4446.
June 28, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Hearing on the National Missile Defense Program.
July 13, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Buyer at
Military Personnel Hearing on DOD Management of the Anthrax
Vaccine Immunization Program.
July 13, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Saxton at
Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism Hearing on Threats to U.S.
Interests in the Middle East.
July 17, 2000--House Committed to Protecting Nuclear Weapon
Secrets at the Department of Energy.
July 17, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
House Floor Consideration of H. Res. 534.
July 19, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at Full
Committee Hearing on Military Capabilities of the People's
Republic of China.
August 17, 2000--GAO Report ``Heightens Concerns'' about
Stockpile Stewardship Program and Department of Energy
Management of National Ignition Facility.
August 17, 2000--GAO Report: National Ignition Facility--
Management and Oversight Failures Caused Major Cost Overruns
and Schedule Delays.
September 2000--National Security Report--National Missile
Defense: Countering the Ballistic Missile Threat.
September 1, 2000--Delay of National Missile Defense System
will ``Increase Risk to Americans''.
September 11, 2000--Chairman Spence on the Death of
Representative Herb Bateman.
September 21, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement Hearing on the DOD Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction Program.
September 21, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter at
Military Procurement Hearing on the Status of Military
Procurement Requirements and Funding.
September 27, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on Readiness and Service Budgets.
October 5, 2000--GAO Report: Department of Defense Fails to
Cut Headquarters Staff Levels.
October 5, 2000--GAO Report: Defense Headquarters--Status
of Efforts to Redefine and Reduce Headquarters Staff.
October 6, 2000--H.R. 4205: The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001--Summary of Conference
Agreement.
October 6, 2000--Keeping Faith with America's Veterans.
October 6, 2000--Congress Approves Compensation Plan for
Nuclear Weapons Workers.
October 11, 2000--Floor Statement of Chairman Floyd Spence
on the Conference Report on H.R. 4205--FY 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act.
October 12, 2000--House Armed Services Committee Adopts
Motion Condemning Attack on U.S.S. Cole.
October 13, 2000--``One Year Later, Slow Progress for DOE
Reform,'' says Special Nuclear Security Oversight Panel.
October 13, 2000--Panel Report: Establishing the National
Nuclear Security Administration: A Year of Obstacles and
Opportunities.
October 18, 2000--Prepared Floor Statement of Chairman
Spence-Resolution Regarding the Attack on the U.S.S. Cole.
October 25, 2000--Opening Statement of Chairman Spence at
Full Committee Hearing on the Bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
November 21, 2000--Statement of Chairman Spence on Florida
Disqualified Military Absentee Ballots.
November 28, 2000--Statement of Chairman Buyer at Personnel
Subcommittee Hearing on Proposals to Transform TRADOC.