[House Report 113-309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 227
113th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 113-309
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
December 27, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DUNCAN HUNTER, California Georgia
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia RON BARBER, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DEREK KILMER, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MO BROOKS, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
PAUL COOK, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 27, 2013.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the
first annual report on the activities of the Committee on Armed
Services for the 113th Congress.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Powers and Duties................................................ 1
Committee Rules.................................................. 5
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services................... 17
Committee Staff.................................................. 21
Committee Meetings and Hearings.................................. 23
Legislative Activities........................................... 24
Oversight Activities............................................. 27
Publications..................................................... 90
Union Calendar No. 227
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-309
======================================================================
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS
_______
December 27, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
POWERS AND DUTIES
BACKGROUND
The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs.
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3,
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a
continuing basis all laws, programs, and Government activities
dealing with or involving international arms control and
disarmament and the education of military dependents in school.
The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on
January 4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of
atomic energy in the Committee on Armed Services. Those
responsibilities involved the national security aspects of
atomic energy previously within the jurisdiction of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 95-110, effective
September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy.
With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which
established the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed
Services over intelligence matters was changed.
That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities and programs of the U.S.
Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding
the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of Central
Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative
jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related
activities and programs was vested in the permanent select
committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional
interest may request consideration of any such matters.
Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed
Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process
involving intelligence-related activities.
The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4,
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals.
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence
matters and the intelligence related activities of the
Department of Defense.
On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered
cemeteries.
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8 of the United
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that
Congress shall have power:
To raise and support Armies;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States;
To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all Places
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
HOUSE RULES ON JURISDICTION
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and
Air Force reservations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum
and oil shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of
interoceanic canals.
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including
financial assistance for the construction and operation of
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the
national security.
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in support of the
armed services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force.
(14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the
common defense.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special
oversight functions with respect to international arms control
and disarmament and the education of military dependents in
schools.
INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority
for each committee to investigate matters within its
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated,
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on
Armed Services.
The committee derives its authority to conduct oversight
from, among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to
investigations and studies).
COMMITTEE RULES
The committee held its organizational meeting on January
15, 2013, and adopted the following rules governing rules and
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full
committee and its subcommittees.
(H.A.S.C. 113-1; Committee Print No. 1)
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules
of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far
as applicable.
(b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be
publicly available in electronic form and published in the
Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the chair of
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,
when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such
other times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Chairman''), or by written
request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed
with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a
written request of a majority of the members of the Committee.
RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee
Chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the
Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority
Member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding,
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and
subcommittee meetings or hearings.
RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES
(a) Jurisdiction
(1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all
subjects listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
retains exclusive jurisdiction for: defense policy
generally, ongoing military operations, the
organization and reform of the Department of Defense
and Department of Energy, counter-drug programs,
security and humanitarian assistance (except special
operations-related activities) of the Department of
Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy,
technology transfer and export controls, joint
interoperability, the Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, Department of Energy nonproliferation
programs, detainee affairs and policy, force protection
policy and inter-agency reform as it pertains to the
Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons programs
of the Department of Energy. While subcommittees are
provided jurisdictional responsibilities in
subparagraph (2), the Committee retains the right to
exercise oversight and legislative jurisdiction over
all subjects within its purview under rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of
seven standing subcommittees with the following
jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All
Army, Air Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs
(except Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle
programs, strategic missiles, space, lift programs,
special operations, science and technology programs,
and information technology accounts) and the associated
weapons systems sustainment. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine
Corps aviation programs and the associated weapons
systems sustainment, National Guard and Army, Air Force
and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition
programs.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military
personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and
employment issues, military health care, military
education, and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare
and Recreation issues and programs.
Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness,
training, logistics and maintenance issues and
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be
responsible for all military construction, depot
policy, civilian personnel policy, environmental
policy, installations and family housing issues,
including the base closure process, and energy policy
and programs of the Department of Defense.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy
acquisition programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and
Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs
(except strategic weapons, space, special operations,
science and technology programs, and information
technology programs), deep strike bombers and related
systems, lift programs, seaborne unmanned aerial
systems and the associated weapons systems sustainment.
In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
Maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the
Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of
clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons
(except deep strike bombers and related systems), space
programs (including national intelligence space
programs), ballistic missile defense, the associated
weapons systems sustainment, and Department of Energy
national security programs (except non-proliferation
programs).
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities: Defense-wide and joint enabling
activities and programs to include: Special Operations
Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy
and programs; information technology programs; homeland
defense and Department of Defense related consequence
management programs; related intelligence support; and
other enabling programs and activities to include cyber
operations, strategic communications, and information
operations. In addition the subcommittee will be
responsible for intelligence policy (including
coordination of military intelligence programs),
national intelligence programs (excluding national
intelligence space programs), and DOD elements that are
part of the Intelligence Community.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Any
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee,
subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the
Committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee
chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative
jurisdiction.
(b) Membership of the Subcommittees
(1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of
membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, shall be filled in accordance with the
rules of the Majority party's conference and the
Minority party's caucus, respectively.
(2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be
filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority
party's conference and the Minority party's caucus,
respectively. Consistent with the party ratios
established by the Majority party, all other Majority
members of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the
Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority
members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking
Minority Member thereof may sit as ex officio members
of all subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote
in subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into
consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio
of the subcommittees or establishing a quorum at
subcommittee hearings or meetings.
(4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of
a particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee
and participate during any of its hearings but shall
not have authority to vote, cannot be counted for the
purpose of achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point
of order at the hearing.
RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES
(a) Committee Panels
(1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the
Committee consisting of members of the Committee to
inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters
that fall within the jurisdiction of more than one
subcommittee and to report to the Committee.
(2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue
in existence for more than six months after the
appointment. A panel so appointed may, upon the
expiration of six months, be reappointed by the
Chairman for a period of time which is not to exceed
six months.
(3) Consistent with the party ratios established by
the Majority party, all Majority members of the panels
shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee,
and all Minority members shall be appointed by the
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. The Chairman
of the Committee shall choose one of the Majority
members so appointed who does not currently chair
another subcommittee of the Committee to serve as
Chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee shall similarly choose the Ranking
Minority Member of the panel.
(4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
(b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
(1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a
subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of
the Committee, may designate a task force to inquire
into and take testimony on a matter that falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee,
respectively. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee or subcommittee shall each appoint an
equal number of members to the task force. The Chairman
of the Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of
the members so appointed, who does not currently chair
another subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as
Chairman of the task force. The Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee or subcommittee shall similarly
appoint the Ranking Minority Member of the task force.
(2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee or subcommittee shall continue in existence
for more than three months. A task force may only be
reappointed for an additional three months with the
written concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee whose
Chairman appointed the task force.
(3) No task force shall have legislative
jurisdiction.
RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by
the Committee.
(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee,
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee.
(e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation
and other matters to be considered by the House of
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and
other applicable rules.
RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee, or
of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, shall make a public
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before
the commencement of a hearing and at least three days before
the commencement of a meeting. However, if the Chairman of the
Committee, or of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, with
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member,
determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or
meeting sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or
task force so determines by majority vote, a quorum being
present for the transaction of business, such chairman shall
make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any
announcement made under this rule shall be promptly published
in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee
scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and
promptly made publicly available in electronic form.
(b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before
such meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the
public.
(b) Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of
business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the
Committee, or any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the
extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct
markups, shall be open to the public except when the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force in open session and with a
majority being present, determines by record vote that all or
part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day
shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony,
evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the
preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in
attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing
or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony
or evidence to be received would endanger the national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive
session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a
majority of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force
being present.
(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee or
subcommittee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is
asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the
witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of
(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or
testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a
majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no
fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the
Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. A majority
of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two
members of the Committee or subcommittee may also vote to close
the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing
whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. The Committee or
subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open
session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being
present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of
the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by
letter to the Chairman, one member of that member's personal
staff, and an alternate, which may include fellows, with Top
Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee,
or that member's subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s)
(excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of
committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the
provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes
for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff
member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval of
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated
by national security requirements at that time. The attainment
of any required security clearances is the responsibility of
individual members of the Committee.
(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance
at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the
House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the
Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series
of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the
public.
(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same
procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five
additional consecutive days of hearings.
RULE 10. QUORUM
(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving
evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.
(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action,
with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the
Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;
(2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and
hearings to the public;
(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;
(4) Authorizing the use of executive session
material; and
(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to
close to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be
received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person.
(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the
House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is
actually present.
RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE
(a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address
the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under
consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when
the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee
chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be
exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall
be recognized for not more than five minutes to address the
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee.
(b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the
Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened
shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman,
as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member will take precedence upon their arrival. In
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the
Majority to Minority members present and shall establish the
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to
disadvantage the members of either party.
(2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a member of
the Committee who is not a member of a subcommittee may be
recognized by a subcommittee chairman in order of their arrival
and after all present subcommittee members have been
recognized.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, with
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may
depart with the regular order for questioning which is
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule provided that
such a decision is announced prior to the hearing or prior to
the opening statements of the witnesses and that any such
departure applies equally to the Majority and the Minority.
(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel,
or task force hearings and meetings.
RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER
(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
(1) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not
limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers
necessary.
(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full
Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in
the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations
or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the
members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee
being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the
Chairman, or by any member designated by the Committee.
(2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued
by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph (a)(2)
may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House of
Representatives.
RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS
(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to
the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the
Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of
presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the
Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less
than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national
security information bearing a classification of Secret or
higher, the statement shall be made available in the Committee
rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee as soon
as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of
presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from
the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be
waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a
quorum being present. In cases where a witness does not submit
a statement by the time required under this rule, the Chairman
of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with the
concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may
elect to exclude the witness from the hearing.
(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each
witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee
in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the
proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such
appearance to a brief summary of the submitted written
statement.
(c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness,
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later
than one day after the witness appears.
RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES
(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman,
may administer oaths to any witness.
(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following
oath:
``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the
testimony you will give before this Committee (or
subcommittee) in the matters now under consideration
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?''
RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES
(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a
subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put
questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman
or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire
shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness
or panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or
witnesses being included in the five-minute period, until such
time as each member has had an opportunity to question each
witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds
for questioning witnesses by members are within the discretion
of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.
(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or
subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that
may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration.
RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS
The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the
Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially
in substantially verbatim form, with the material requested for
the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of
the record, as appropriate. The transcripts of markups
conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be published
officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct any
errors, other than those in transcription, will be appended to
the record, and the appropriate place where the change is
requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under
this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted
in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include
materials that have been submitted for the record and are
covered under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these
materials shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No
transcript of an executive session conducted under rule 9 shall
be published under this rule.
RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS
(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote,
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be
cast by proxy.
(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
(e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as
appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority
Member or the most senior Minority member who is present at the
time, may elect to postpone requested record votes until such
time or point at a markup as is mutually decided. When
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any
intervening order for the previous question, the underlying
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.
RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS
(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice
of intention to file supplemental, Minority, additional or
dissenting views, all members shall be entitled to not less
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in
which to file such written and signed views with the Staff
Director of the Committee, or the Staff Director's designee.
All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee
shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report
filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter.
(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee
report on the measure or matter.
(c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee,
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS
The result of each record vote in any meeting of the
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of
the Committee and also made publicly available in electronic
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. Information so available shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition and the name of each member voting for and each
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or
proposition and the names of those members present but not
voting.
RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION
(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security
information bearing a classification of Secret or higher which
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be
given appropriate safekeeping.
(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any national security information that is
received which is classified as Secret or higher. Such
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by
any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of
the Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has
requested the opportunity to review such material.
(c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation
with the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as
in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any proprietary information that is received by
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such
procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of
Representatives and applicable law.
RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING
The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS
The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
Records Administration shall be made available for public use
in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority
Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause
4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and
the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a
determination on the written request of any member of the
Committee.
RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES
Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS
Not later than January 2nd of each year the Committee shall
submit to the House a report on its activities, pursuant to
clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
FULL COMMITTEE
Pursuant to H. Res. 6 (agreed to January 3, 2013), H. Res.
7 (agreed to January 3, 2013), H. Res. 17 (agreed to January 4,
2013), and H. Res. 22 (agreed to January 14, 2013), the
following Members have served on the Committee on Armed
Services in the 113th Congress:
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JEFF MILLER, Florida
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island ROB BISHOP, Utah
RICK LARSEN, Washington MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOHN GARAMENDI, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JACKIE SPEIER, California JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
RON BARBER, Arizona MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DEREK KILMER, Washington JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SCOTT H. PETERS, California STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas MO BROOKS, Alabama
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The following subcommittees were established at the
committee's organizational meeting on January 15, 2013.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Defense-wide and
joint enabling activities and programs to include: Special
Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy and
programs; information technology programs; homeland defense and
Department of Defense related consequence management programs;
related intelligence support; and other enabling programs and
activities to include cyber operations, strategic
communications, and information operations. In addition the
subcommittee will be responsible for intelligence policy
(including coordination of military intelligence programs),
national intelligence programs (excluding national intelligence
space programs), and DOD elements that are part of the
Intelligence Community.
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaLL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DEREK KILMER, Washington DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
SCOTT H. PETERS, California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military
personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and employment
issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA
issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.
JOE WILSON, South Carolina,
Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
all military construction, depot policy, civilian personnel
policy, environmental policy, installations and family housing
issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy
and programs of the Department of Defense.
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia,
Chairman
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
JACKIE SPEIER, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RON BARBER, Arizona FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy acquisition
programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps amphibious
assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, space,
special operations, science and technology programs, and
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and
related systems, lift programs, seaborne unmanned aerial
systems and the associated weapons systems sustainment. In
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Maritime
programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated
in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives.
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia,
Chairman
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
RICK LARSEN, Washington STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
DEREK KILMER, Washington JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
SCOTT H. PETERS, California KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
PAUL COOK, California
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Strategic
weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space
programs (including national intelligence space programs),
ballistic missile defense, the associated weapons systems
sustainment, and Department of Energy national security
programs (except non-proliferation programs).
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
RICK LARSEN, Washington MO BROOKS, Alabama
JOHN GARAMENDI, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaCHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--All Army, Air
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles,
space, lift programs, special operations, science and
technology programs, and information technology accounts) and
the associated weapons systems sustainment. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine Corps
aviation programs and the associated weapons systems
sustainment, National Guard and Army, Air Force and Marine
Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition programs.
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
JIM COOPER, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
JOHN GARAMENDI, California JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
RON BARBER, Arizona MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York PAUL COOK, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROB BISHOP, Utah
----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the
concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee and, as
appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee
shall have no legislative jurisdiction.
MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama, Chairman
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
COMMITTEE STAFF
By committee resolution adopted at the organizational
meeting on January 15, 2013, or by authority of the chairman,
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the
committee during the 113th Congress:
Robert Simmons II, Staff Director
Roger Zakheim, Deputy Staff
Director/General Counsel (resigned
Oct. 31, 2013)
Jenness Simler, Deputy Staff
Director
Catherine McElroy, General Counsel
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
Michael R. Higgins, Professional
Staff Member (resigned Feb. 28,
2013)
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff
Member
John F. Sullivan, Professional
Staff Member
Nancy M. Warner, Professional
Staff Member (resigned May 1,
2013)
Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff
Member
Douglas C. Roach, Professional
Staff Member (deceased Jan. 11,
2013)
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff
Member
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff
Member
Jeanette S. James, Professional
Staff Member
Rebecca A. Ross, Professional
Staff Member
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff
Member
Lynn M. Williams, Professional
Staff Member
John Wason, Professional Staff
Member
Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
Douglas Bush, Professional Staff
Member
Vickie Plunkett, Professional
Staff Member
Timothy McClees, Professional
Staff Member and Senior Advisor to
the Ranking Member (resigned Dec.
13, 2013)
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff
Member
Mike Casey, Professional Staff
Member
David Sienicki, Professional Staff
Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative
Operations
Everett Coleman, Professional
Staff Member
Craig Greene, Professional Staff
Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional
Staff Member
Jack Schuler, Professional Staff
Member
Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant
(resigned Jan. 4, 2013)
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff
Member
John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff
Member and Senior Advisor to the
Chairman
Peter Villano, Professional Staff
Member
Jim Weiss, Research Assistant
(resigned Mar. 8, 2013)
Paul Lewis, Counsel (resigned Oct.
1, 2013)
Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff
Member
Michele Pearce, Counsel
Catherine Sendak, Professional
Staff Member
Michael Amato, Professional Staff
Member
Robert J. McAlister, Deputy
Spokesman
Christopher J. Bright,
Professional Staff Member
Thomas MacKenzie, Professional
Staff Member (resigned May 1,
2013)
Lauren Hauhn, Research Assistant
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff
Member
Elizabeth Nathan, Professional
Staff Member
Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive
Assistant
Nicholas Rodman, Clerk
Andrew T. Walter, Professional
Staff Member
Claude Chafin, Communications
Director
Aaron Falk, Clerk
Arthur Milikh, Clerk
Tim Morrison, Counsel
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff
Member
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff
Member
James Mazol, Staff Assistant
(resigned Mar. 12, 2013)
Katie Thompson, Clerk
Alexander Gallo, Professional
Staff Member
Eric L. Smith, Clerk
Joe Sangiorgio, Communications
Assistant
John Noonan, Deputy Communications
Director
Dan Harder, Intern (appointed Jan.
23, 2013, resigned Mar. 22, 2013)
Daniel Westlake, Intern (appointed
Jan. 23, 2013, resigned May 17,
2013)
Alexandra Chinchilla, Intern
(appointed Jan. 24, 2013, resigned
May 16, 2013)
Gabe Surratt, Intern (appointed
Feb. 8, 2013, resigned June 14,
2013)
Colin Bosse, Clerk (appointed Mar.
4, 2013)
Julie Herbert, Clerk (appointed
Mar. 13, 2013)
Colleen Taggart, Intern (appointed
May 20, 2013, resigned Aug. 2,
2013)
Schuyler Miller, Intern (appointed
May 27, 2013, resigned Aug. 2,
2013)
Daniel Swartz, Intern (appointed
June 3, 2013, resigned Aug. 2,
2013)
Alec Sugarman, Intern (appointed
June 13, 2013, resigned Aug. 2,
2013)
Rob Simmons, Intern (appointed
June 24, 2013, resigned Aug. 27,
2013)
Stephen Harris, Intern (appointed
July 1, 2013, resigned July 26,
2013)
David Giachetti, Professional
Staff Member (appointed Sept. 1,
2013)
Kate Bock, Intern (appointed Sept.
3, 2013, resigned Dec. 12, 2013)
Aaron Novy, Intern (appointed
Sept. 3, 2013, resigned Dec. 12,
2013)
Kari Bingen, Professional Staff
Member (appointed Sept. 16, 2013)
Viktor Stoll, Intern (appointed
Sept. 16, 2013, resigned Dec. 12,
2013)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
A total of 153 meetings and hearings have been held by the
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees and panels
during the 113th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and
hearings follows:
FULL COMMITTEE.................................................... 46
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities................................................ 20
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................ 14
Subcommittee on Readiness..................................... 19
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................ 15
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................. 15
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................. 14
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................. 10
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress
H. Con. Res. 58--Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the need
for the continued availability of religious services to members of the
Armed Forces and their families during a lapse in appropriations
H. Con. Res. 58, ``Expressing the sense of Congress
regarding the need for the continued availability of religious
services to members of the Armed Forces and their families
during a lapse in appropriations'' was introduced on October 5,
2013, by Mr. Doug Collins (GA) and was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee
on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On
October 5, 2013, Mr. Joe Wilson moved to consider H. Con Res.
58 under suspension of the rules of the House, and the motion
to suspend the rules and pass the bill was agreed to by the
yeas and nays, 400-1 (Roll no. 526). On October 10, 2013, the
resolution was laid before Senate by unanimous consent, and
agreed to by the Senate with an amendment and an amended
preamble by unanimous consent. On October 16, 2013, the House
agreed to the Senate amendments by unanimous consent.
Legislation Passed by the House of Representatives
H.R. 1960--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
On May 14, 2013, H.R. 1960, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, was introduced by
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and referred to the
Committee on Armed Services. On June 7, 2013, the Committee on
Armed Services held a markup session to consider H.R. 1960. The
committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1960,
as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a
vote of 59-2. The bill passed the House, as amended, on June
14, 2013, by recorded vote, 315-108 (Roll no. 244). On July 8,
2013, the bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders
Calendar No. 126. For further action on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, please see H.R. 3304.
H.R. 3304--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
H.R. 3304 was introduced on October 22, 2013, by Mr.
Theodore E. Deutch. The bill's title, as introduced, was ``To
authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor
to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States
Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to
authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other
veterans who were previously recommended for award of the Medal
of Honor,'' and was referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. The committee waived consideration of H.R. 3304, and
on October 28, 2013, Mr. Mike Rogers (AL) moved to consider
H.R. 3304 under suspension of the rules of the House, and the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was agreed to by
voice vote. On October 29, 2013, the bill was received in the
Senate, read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services. On November 19, 2013, the Senate Committee on
Armed Services was discharged and the bill was laid before
Senate by unanimous consent. On November 19, 2013, H.R. 3304
was passed in the Senate with amendments and an amendment to
the title by unanimous consent. The following day, a message on
Senate action was sent to the House.
In lieu of a formal conference report for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the legislative
vehicle used for the agreed upon legislative text between the
House and the Senate was an amendment to H.R. 3304. The
provisions granting the President the authority to award the
Medal of Honor to certain individuals were retained. On
December 12, 2013, Mr. McKeon moved that the House to suspend
the rules and agree to the resolution H.Res. 441, which
provided for the concurrence by the House in the Senate
amendments to H.R. 3304, with an amendment, which contained the
agreed upon legislative text between the House and the Senate.
Pursuant to H. Res. 441, the House agreed to Senate amendments
to H.R. 3304, with an amendment, by the yeas and nays, 350-69
(Roll no. 641). On December 13, 2013, a message on House action
was received in Senate and held at the desk. H.R. 3304 is
awaiting further action in the Senate.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would: (1) Authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2014 for procurement and for research, development,
test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2014 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for
working capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2014: (a)
the personnel strength for each Active Duty Component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed
Forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
Active and Reserve Components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (8) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2014 for the Maritime Administration.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, which
grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to
provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X
of the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the
Department of Defense generally, and over the military
application of nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed
Services. The bill includes the large majority of the findings
and recommendations resulting from the oversight activities of
Committee on Armed Services in the current year, as informed by
the experience gained over the previous decades of the
committee's existence.
Legislation Not Reported But Managed by the Committee on Armed Services
on the Floor of the House of Representatives
H.R. 272--To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs and
Department of Defense joint outpatient clinic to be constructed in
Marina, California, as the ``Major General William H. Gourley VA-DOD
Outpatient Clinic
H.R. 272, ``To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs
and Department of Defense joint outpatient clinic to be
constructed in Marina, California, as the ``Major General
William H. Gourley VA-DOD Outpatient Clinic'' was introduced on
January 15, 2013, by Mr. Sam Farr and was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel and
the full committee waived consideration of H.R. 272. On
November 1, 2013, Mr. Brad Wenstrup moved to consider H.R. 272,
as amended, under suspension of the rules of the House, and the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was agreed to by
the yeas and nays, 388-0 (Roll no. 589). On November 19, 2013,
H.R. 272 was received in the Senate. No further action has been
taken.
H.R. 1864--To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an
Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel
actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding
sexual assault
H.R. 1864. ``To amend title 10, United States Code, to
require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of
retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making
protected communications regarding sexual assault'' was
introduced on May 7, 2013, by Mrs. Jackie Walorski and was
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The Subcommittee
on Military Personnel and the full committee waived
consideration of H.R. 1864. On June 26, 2013, Mrs. Walorski
moved to consider H.R. 1864 under suspension of the rules of
the House, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass the
bill was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 423-0 (Roll no. 294).
On July 8, 2013, H.R. 1864 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
No further action has been taken.
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, described below are actions taken and
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special
attention during the 113th Congress, as well as additional
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight
plan.
POLICY ISSUES
National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Related
Defense Policy Issues
During the first session of the 113th Congress, the
committee has continued its traditional interest in the broad
spectrum of national security challenges facing the United
States and how the Nation might best prepare itself to face
such challenges in the near- and long-term. H.R. 3304, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and
the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanies it, is a key
mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its primary
responsibilities as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. H.R.
3304 includes the large majority of the findings and
recommendations resulting from the committee's oversight
activities in the current year, as informed by the experience
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
H.R. 3304 reflects the committee's steadfast support of the
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions.
Events of the last year, ranging from on-going operations in
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the security situation in
the Syrian Arab Republic, the renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific
region, heightened tensions on the Korean peninsula, dispersed
special operations in support of the global war on terrorism,
and time-sensitive disaster and humanitarian responses, serve
to highlight the U.S. military's flexibility and responsiveness
in defending the Nation's interests and addressing security
challenges, wherever and whenever they may arise. The committee
understands that the capabilities of the Armed Forces are
underpinned by the dedicated civilian employees of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration, as well as the defense
industrial base. Each of these elements is required to enable
the U.S. military to be the guarantor of peace and economic
security that it has been for generations.
The committee recognizes that the Budget Control Act of
2011 (Public Law 112-25) and defense sequestration has had, and
will continue to have, a severe impact on the military. To help
the Department of Defense further understand the impacts of
sequestration and the resultant strategic choices and tradeoffs
it must consider in such a constrained budget environment, the
Secretary of Defense undertook a Strategic Choices and
Management Review (SCMR). The committee convened several
hearings and briefings, building upon previous oversight
activities conducted in prior sessions of Congress, to further
its understanding of the impacts of sequestration on the
Department of Defense and the strategic choices considered in
the SCMR. Following the automatic cuts to the defense budget
that began in January 2013, as required by the Budget Control
Act, the committee held a hearing on the ``Impacts of a
Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Defense,'' on
February 13, 2013, with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. On August 1, 2013, the committee convened a hearing on
the ``Initial Conclusions Formed by the Defense Strategic
Choices and Management Review,'' with the Deputy Secretary of
Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
on September 18, 2013, held a hearing titled ``Planning for
Sequestration in Fiscal Year 2014 and Perspectives of the
Military Services on the Strategic Choices and Management
Review.''
These hearings, coupled with committee briefings and
official statements from senior defense officials over the past
year, further illustrate the acute impact of sequestration on
military force posture, readiness, modernization, and planning
and budgeting. The committee is committed to providing full
authorization for the funding required for the readiness of our
military; to enhance the quality of life of military service
members and their families; to sustain and improve the Armed
Forces; and to properly safeguard the national security of the
United States. To this end, H.R. 3304 would authorize $552.1
billion in spending for national defense and an additional
$80.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, consistent
with the House budget, the President's budget request, and the
Senate budget. This legislation would ensure our troops
deployed in Afghanistan and around the world have the
equipment, resources, authorities, training, and time needed to
successfully complete their missions and return home; provide
warfighters and their families with the resources and support
they need, deserve, and have earned; invest in the capabilities
and force structure needed to protect the United States from
current and future threats; and mandate fiscal responsibility,
transparency and accountability within the Department of
Defense.
The committee recognizes that continued sequestration of
the national defense accounts, or future national defense
appropriations at sequestration funding levels, would limit the
ability of the Department to implement the 2012 defense
strategic guidance, and may very well impact the new National
Security Strategy (NSS) and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),
both expected to be released in early 2014. The committee has
maintained oversight of the QDR process through a series of
staff briefings provided by the Department in 2013. It also
convened an Oversight & Investigation Subcommittee hearing on
February 26, 2013, with experts outside of government titled,
``The Quadrennial Defense Review: Process, Policy, and
Perspectives,'' to examine the QDR process and broader
strategic issues the QDR should consider. The committee will
continue to monitor QDR developments as well as the subsequent
independent review of the QDR by the associated National
Defense Panel (NDP). Through the committee's oversight, it will
be postured to consider the findings and recommendations of the
NSS, QDR, and NDP, and to understand the assumptions and
assessments leading to possible changes from previous national
strategies and reviews.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
The committee maintained three critical areas of focus with
respect to the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and
U.S. efforts with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, including:
(1) The efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda,
(2) The transition of security responsibilities from the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-International
Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) to the Afghan National
Security Forces (ANSF) and the retrograde of ISAF equipment,
and
(3) the progress of the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA)
between the United States and the Government of Afghanistan and
the planning for any post-2014 residual presence of U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.
The committee conducted numerous oversight activities,
including staff and member-level briefings. Additionally, the
committee convened hearings to complement the oversight of the
policy, strategy, and post-2014 presence in Afghanistan,
including hearings with outside experts on February 27, 2013
and September 19, 2013.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would extend a number of authorities that
support congressional oversight of U.S. defense programs in
Afghanistan. H.R. 3304 would re-authorize the Commanders'
Emergency Response Program (CERP), the Afghanistan
Infrastructure Fund (AIF), the authority for reintegration
activities in Afghanistan, the Task Force for Business and
Stability Operations (TFBSO), and the Afghanistan Security
Forces Fund (ASFF). These authorities support the NATO-ISAF
commander's campaign plan in Afghanistan. Additionally, H.R.
3304 would include a description of U.S. policy and approach in
Afghanistan and calls on the President to consult with Congress
on any post-2014 mission prior to any public announcement on a
presidential decision to have a post-2014 presence in
Afghanistan. H.R. 3304 would also limit 50 percent of funds
authorized to be appropriated for CERP, AIF, and ASFF until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to specified congressional
committees of jurisdiction that the United States has signed a
Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) with the Government of
Afghanistan and that the BSA is in the national security
interest of the United States. Lastly, H.R. 3304 would provide
for certain improvements in the process for the authority,
consistent with section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-8), to provide Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) to
those who worked with the U.S. military in Afghanistan.
The committee remains concerned about the control of the
border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the ability of the
groups that exploit the difficulty in securing this border to
attack ISAF and ASNF forces in order to affect the strategic
landscape in Afghanistan. To support oversight of this issue,
H.R. 3304 would require the Secretary of Defense to furnish a
report on the plan to disrupt and degrade the Haqqani Network,
which will provide the committee with an understanding of the
interagency effort against the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan
and the region.
Finally, the committee continues to maintain a focus on the
United States' efforts with the Government of Pakistan. To that
end, H.R. 3304 would re-authorize the Coalition Support Fund
(CSF), which reimburses certain countries, including Pakistan,
for their direct support to Operation Enduring Freedom;
however, this section also would require the Secretary of
Defense to certify key aspects of the partnership with Pakistan
before providing reimbursements through the CSF.
Force Protection
The committee continued to emphasize force protection as a
high priority issue for special oversight during the 113th
Congress. Particular focus areas included those having direct
impact on the safety of military personnel engaged in
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and other
overseas contingency operations. The committee helped to
expedite the promulgation of policies and the fielding of
technology and equipment that prevented and/or reduced combat
casualties.
During the 113th Congress, through formal activity to
include hearings, classified briefings, and interaction with
Government Accountability Office (GAO) auditors, the committee
continued to maintain rigorous oversight of the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the
Department of Defense's focal point for the battle against
improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The committee continued to
examine and provide oversight on JIEDDO's current roles and
missions, operational functions, organizational and force
structure requirements, as well as current metrics for
measuring success against countering the global IED threat.
Further, the committee continued to receive monthly updates on
JIEDDO's financial management and funding rates of obligation
and execution, as well as monitor the use of recent expanded
authority to transfer limited funds to the Department of State
for the purposes of monitoring, disrupting, and interdicting
the movement of explosive precursors from the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan to locations within Afghanistan.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize $955.0 million for JIEDDO;
would direct the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report to
Congress on the long-term strategy for JIEDDO; and would extend
existing authorities to December 31, 2014, to include JIEDDO's
ability to transfer limited funding to the Department of State
for the purposes of mitigating the movement of explosive
precursors for improvised explosive devices from Pakistan to
Afghanistan.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
classified briefing on August 1, 2013 to receive a global IED
assessment, with particular emphasis on Afghanistan.
Global War on Terrorism
Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has dealt Al
Qaeda repeated and significant blows during the global war on
terrorism. Despite many notable successes, however, Al Qaeda
remains potent in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, with its organization's
affiliates continuing to expand in locations such as Somalia,
Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and North Africa. The committee continued
to conduct extensive oversight, often in classified form, on
terrorism issues and emerging threats, giving particular
attention to special operations capabilities, the changing
nature of Al Qaeda's organization and operations, as well as
efforts to build partner nation counterterrorism capabilities.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities held several related hearings and
briefings in this area including a hearing on February 13,
2013, ``The Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request for U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S.
Special Operations Forces''; a hearing on March 3, 2013, ``The
Posture of the U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations
Command, and U.S. Transportation Command''; a briefing on March
19, 2013, ``Counterterrorism Operations Update''; a briefing on
April 24, 2013, ``Weapons of Mass Destruction and
Counterproliferation Programs''; a hearing on June 28, 2013,
``Past, Present, and Future Irregular Warfare Challenges''; a
briefing on July 11, 2013, ``Exploitation of Materials
Recovered during the Osama bin Laden Raid''; a briefing on July
31, 2013, ``Counterterrorism Policy and Operations Update''; a
briefing on September 12, 2013, ``Counterterrorism Operations
Update''; a hearing on October 10, 2013, ``Biodefense,
Worldwide Threats and Countermeasures for the Department of
Defense''; a briefing on October 16, 2013, ``Counterterrorism
Operations Update''; and a briefing on October 23, 2013, on the
state of Al Qaeda.
As the United States strengthens and builds partnership
capacity with key allies around the world, the committee has
remain focused on the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to
aggressively fight the global war on terror and counter
radicalism in the greater Middle East and across the globe.
Ensuring security and stability in volatile regions that cannot
adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory
remains a top priority for the committee.
The Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities included several legislative provisions related to
the global war on terrorism in H.R. 1960, that National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed by the House, in
the committee report accompanying H.R. 1960, and H.R. 3304, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This
included: a provision to re-authorize DOD personnel recovery
authorities used by our military commanders and Special
Operations Forces to plan and execute the safe recovery of U.S.
personnel isolated during military and contingency operations;
a provision directing the Secretary of Defense to review the
future role of U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Special
Operations Command; a provision that clarified certain
acquisition authorities of U.S. Special Operations Command; a
provision modifying the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program;
a provision directing the Comptroller General to review medical
countermeasures and the threat posed by genetically engineered
bio-terror agents; a provision directing the Comptroller
General to review threats posed by non-traditional chemical
agents; and several defense intelligence provisions designed to
support Geographic Combatant Commander needs, requirements, and
priorities. Additionally the subcommittee assisted the
committee with several provisions within H.R. 3304 related to
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Building Partnership Capacity,
Security Force Assistance, Counterinsurgency, Sensitive
Military Operations, Intelligence, and the regional conflicts
of Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and East Africa addressed
elsewhere in this report.
In coordination with the committee, the Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted
additional oversight of specific issues related to the global
war on terrorism, to include: special operations capabilities,
counter-terrorism, and counter-proliferation programs and
activities; and homeland defense and consequence management
programs; intelligence policy, national intelligence programs,
and DOD elements part of the Intelligence Community. Further
details on these subcommittee activities are provided elsewhere
in this report.
Asia
The defense strategic guidance, released in January 2012,
stated that the United States military would rebalance to the
Asia-Pacific region in recognition of the economic and security
interests of the United States in the region. The region is
home to more than 50 percent of the world's population; 3,000
different languages; several of the world's largest militaries;
five countries allied with the United States through mutual
defense treaties (the Commonwealth of Australia, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, the Republic of the Philippines, and the
Kingdom of Thailand); two of the world's four largest economies
(Japan and the People's Republic of China); and 10 of its 14
smallest economies. Given the size and importance of the
region, the committee continued to monitor the Department of
Defense's strategy, force posture, and readiness, to ensure
that U.S. forces are properly resourced and postured to protect
U.S. national security interests.
The People's Republic of China continued efforts to assert
regional influence, while the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea (DPRK) remained a threat to stability on the Korean
peninsula. As part of its oversight, the committee held several
classified briefings examining regional developments ranging
from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) military modernization
trends to the North Korean threat to test launch a missile, as
well as classified briefings on the 2013 annual reports on
military and security developments related to the People's
Republic of China and North Korea. The committee also held a
hearing on November 20, 2013, on the 2013 Annual Report to
Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, focusing on several PLA modernization developments
over the last year and China's engagement in cyber espionage
against the United States.
As part of the committee's oversight of this critical
region, the Chairman and Ranking Member have committed to a
dedicated Asia-Pacific hearing series, led by Rep. J. Randy
Forbes and Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa. In addition to the
hearings held by the committee and its subcommittees as part of
this series, on November 13, 2013, the committee held a closed-
door roundtable with regional Ambassadors from Australia,
Japan, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and South Korea to
discuss issues of mutual interest and concern.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would add an additional reporting requirement
to the Department of Defense Annual Report on Military and
Security Developments Involving the DPRK. The Joint Explanatory
Statement accompanying H.R. 3304 would also contain a provision
that would add an additional reporting requirement on China's
fifth generation fighter program to the Department of Defense
annual report on military and security developments involving
the People's Republic of China.
The committee remained focused on the Asia-Pacific region
and its evolving security environment, particularly regarding
engagement with allies and partners. The committee continued to
monitor key operational control transition initiatives between
U.S. Forces Korea and the Republic of Korea, as well as the
Yongsan Relocation Plan and the Land Partnership Plan. With
respect to Japan, the committee continued to focus on the
continued realignment of U.S. forces that are based in Japan.
Committee staff traveled to South Korea and Japan to conduct
congressional oversight of the force posture of U.S. forces in
South Korea and Japan. The committee also continued to evaluate
U.S. military engagement with other regional allies and
partners, including Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines,
and several other countries.
Central and South America
The committee continued to examine the issues affecting the
United States military in Central and South America, as many
nations in this region increasingly face the dangers of illicit
trafficking, political turmoil, and instability that pose a
potential threat to the homeland. The committee maintained
strong oversight of the U.S. role in the Republic of Colombia,
as Colombia continues to improve its national security and
continues peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC). In addition, the committee continually
monitored the political and economic changes in the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela, instability in parts of Central America
including the Republic of Honduras, and the security situation
in the United Mexican States. The committee examined potential
threats from global terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda,
Hezbollah, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, who have
increasing influence in the region.
The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,
includes several provisions that would reauthorize Department
of Defense counternarcotics authorities for the Republic of
Colombia and other nations in the region. In addition, the
Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304 would
require a number of briefings and reports from the Department
of Defense, including a counternarcotics strategy in Central
America and the status of operations as it relates to Operation
Martillo. The committee recognizes the importance of the United
States' relationship with its Central and South American
neighbors and the assurance of safety and security in the
region.
Europe
While the stability and security of Europe remain core U.S.
national interests, the U.S. military force presence in Europe
has declined dramatically since the end of the cold war. The
planned withdrawal of two of four Army Brigade Combat Teams
will further reduce U.S. military presence. Nevertheless, there
are significant advantages that come from European-based U.S.
troops, including the opportunity to train regularly with
allied and partner forces at U.S. training centers in Europe,
and the ability to plan and launch operations elsewhere in the
region, as was demonstrated recently by Operation Odyssey Dawn
and Operation Unified Protector in Libya. The committee
continued to examine all overseas basing, including Europe, to
inform its views on a cost effective force posture to meet U.S.
national security needs.
European allies are strong partners of the U.S. military,
contributing to a range of regional and global missions,
including approximately 30 percent of the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) training teams in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. However, the continuing constrained
fiscal environment has created pressures on the region's
militaries, defense budgets, and investments in future
capabilities. To deal with the financial impact on the region's
militaries, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) agreed to a ``Smart Defense'' initiative, a
series of projects designed to pool and share resources in
order to better set priorities and encourage members to
specialize. In addition to the full committee hearing on the
posture of the U.S. European Command listed elsewhere in this
report, the committee held a number of staff briefings to
consider developments in Europe. The committee will continue to
focus on the U.S. military's engagement in NATO's activities.
While the cold war has been over for more than 20 years,
the U.S. military's relationship with the Russian Federation is
focused on building and maintaining cooperative military-to-
military relations while also reassuring U.S. allies wary of
Russia's intentions. Russia remains focused on reforming and
modernizing their forces, with specific emphasis on improving
the recruitment, training, and retention of its troops. The
committee paid particular attention to U.S-Russia discussions
on missile defense, conducting several staff briefings and
member engagements with senior Department of Defense and
Department of State officials.
The committee also closely followed U.S-Russia
nonproliferation activities, and held several staff-level
briefings on the umbrella agreement governing the
nonproliferation activities of the Department of Defense and
the Department of Energy. Russia announced it wanted changes to
this agreement, which was set to expire in June 2013. The old
agreement helped the U.S. Government, particularly Department
of Defense personnel, secure and dismantle Soviet-era nuclear
weapons and contained key liabilities for U.S. personnel. The
new agreement, signed in June 2013, enables continued
engagement only between the National Nuclear Security
Administration and Russia's State Nuclear Energy Cooperation
(Rosatom).
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, expressed the sense
of Congress on the importance of stationing U.S. forces in
Europe. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,
would require the Department of Defense to submit a report on
military and security developments involving the Russian
Federation.
Addressing Emerging Threats
The committee continued to focus attention on how the
Department of Defense addresses the threats of terrorism,
insurgency, and weapons of mass destruction proliferation,
including how the Department addresses these threats in its
strategic planning processes, how resources are arrayed to meet
these threats, and how existing authorities are consistent with
operational requirements. The committee also continued its
oversight of numerous cross-cutting Department activities
central to addressing these emerging and unforeseen threats,
including counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, security force
assistance, and building partnership capacity (BPC), all of
which received renewed emphasis in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review.
While there are roughly a dozen authorities that fall into
the BPC category, the committee devoted particular attention to
the global train and equip ``1206'' authority and the Global
Security Contingency Fund. Since 2006, the committee has been
increasingly active in this area, and the last several National
Defense Authorization Acts have reflected what Congress
considers to be the appropriate balance of providing sufficient
authority for the most pressing needs of the Department of
Defense, while encouraging a more integrated interagency
approach to building partnership capacity. Furthermore, the
committee continued its close monitoring and assessment of the
execution of these BPC authorities, both during the initial
congressional notification process and during program
execution.
The committee, as well as the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats, and Capabilities (given the key role Special
Operations Forces play in this area), continued its oversight
of the full range of emerging threats to national security and
U.S. military forces, and the capabilities needed to respond.
The committee held a hearing on February 14, 2013,
``Framework for Building Partnership Capacity Authorities to
Meet 21st Century Challenges'' and received testimony from
witnesses representing the Department of Defense and the
Government Accountability Office.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, and the Joint Explanatory Statement
accompanying it, includes several provisions that would
reauthorize authorities and requiring reports dealing with
Department of Defense counternarcotics programs, including
programs in the Republic of Colombia and the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan. H.R. 3304 would also modify and extend the
``1206'' authority to include authorizing train and equip
activities with those security forces of foreign nations that
conduct counterterrorism operations, extending the authority
through 2017, and requiring two new reports. H.R. 3304 would
also make technical modifications to the Global Security
Contingency Fund authority, section 1207 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), and codify the National Guard State Partnership Program.
Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters
During the 113th Congress, the committee has conducted
extensive oversight of detainees who are being held in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and at U.S. Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). The committee held three member
briefings relating to detention policy issues, in addition to
numerous staff briefings.
With regard to detainee operations in Afghanistan, the
committee focused on the transfer and release of detainees held
in the Bagram detention facility, cases of recidivism, and the
continued transition of detainees into Afghan custody. The
committee specifically focused on the disposition of detainees
who pose a continuing national security threat to the United
States.
With respect to detention operations at GTMO, the committee
continued to monitor transfer and release policies and
practices, as well as the use of the Military Commissions Act
(Public Law 109-366; Public Law 111-84) to try detainees for
war crimes.
The committee also focused on issues relating to detainee
interrogations, intelligence collection, detainee reviews,
conditions of confinement, and the Department of Defense's role
in the High Value Interrogation Group.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, contains numerous provisions relating to
detention policy, including a 1-year prohibition on the
transfer of GTMO detainees to the United States, a 1-year
prohibition on the construction or modification of facilities
in the United States to house GTMO detainees, and authorities,
under certain circumstances and subject to certain
requirements, relating to foreign transfers of GTMO detainees.
H.R. 3304 also contains several reporting requirements relating
to detainees at GTMO and in Afghanistan.
Intelligence
The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats, and Capabilities conducted extensive
oversight of defense intelligence activities, including one
hearing, seven member briefings, and numerous staff briefings.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats, and Capabilities placed particular attention on:
resource allocation for intelligence-related programs both for
effectiveness and affordability; defense intelligence
strategies and policies in consideration of current and
anticipated future threats; organization and management of the
elements of the Department of Defense that are part of the
intelligence community; and the consideration and
prioritization of defense intelligence requirements across the
intelligence community. Additionally, the committee monitored
the Department's security practices, audit capabilities, and
information-sharing policies following recent extensive
unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, includes several intelligence-related
provisions, including: a requirement for the Secretary of
Defense to develop a policy for internal coordination and
prioritization of Department of Defense intelligence
priorities; a limitation on the use of funds for the Defense
Clandestine Service; a prohibition on separation or
consolidation of the portions of the Department of Defense
budget that are identified as part of the National Intelligence
Program; and a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan regarding future use of defense intelligence
assets as a result of the U.S. military drawdown in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan.
National Guard and Reserves
The committee continued its oversight efforts focused on
current equipment investment strategies for the National Guard
and Reserve Components with particular emphasis on
affordability and modernization of critical dual-use equipment
platforms that are essential to the National Guard's title 32,
United States Code, mission; defense support to civil
authorities. H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, would direct an additional $400.0 million
to adequately resource under-funded critical dual-use equipment
requirements for the National Guard and Reserve Component.
The Continent of Africa
The committee conducted regular oversight of the continent
of Africa, including numerous staff level briefings and a
member-level briefing in closed session.
Additionally, H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would re-authorize the efforts of the
Department of Defense and U.S. Africa Command, consistent with
the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda
Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), to assist the
Ugandan People's Defense Force as they combat the Lord's
Resistance Army (LRA) and attempt to remove or apprehend Joseph
Kony. This re-authorization allows for the provision of
logistic support, supplies, and services, and intelligence
support to foreign forces participating in operations to
mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's
Resistance Army. Additionally, H.R. 3304 provided $50.0 million
for additional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) capability to aid this effort. Finally, H.R. 3304
required reports on counterterrorism assistance and cooperation
in the Sahel and Maghreb regions, a strategy to support
security and governance gains in Somalia, and an intelligence
assessment of al-Shabaab, an Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist
group in Somalia to complement and reinforce the committee's
oversight of defense policy related to the African continent.
Finally, H.R. 3304 would authorize a report on the posture and
readiness of the U.S. armed forces to respond to future
terrorist attacks in Africa and the Middle East against U.S.
embassies and facilities.
Syria
The committee conducted regular oversight of the evolving
security situation in Syrian Arab Republic and the region,
including staff level briefings and two member-level briefings
in closed session. Additionally, the committee convened a
hearing on the security situation in Syria on July 17, 2013,
and a hearing on the Administration's proposed authorization
for the use of force against the Government of Syria on
September 9, 2013.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
provide assistance to the military and civilian first responder
organizations of countries that share a border with Syria in
order to enhance the capability of such countries to respond
effectively to potential incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction in Syria and the surrounding region. In addition,
H.R. 3304 would authorize assistance on a reimbursable basis to
the Government of Jordan for their efforts to secure the
Jordan-Syria border.
H.R. 3304 would also provide enhanced authority through the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program to facilitate destruction
of Syria's chemical weapons. The committee continues oversight
of these activities, as well as U.S. nonproliferation programs
at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Department of Defense Response to the Attack on the Diplomatic
Facilities in Benghazi, Libya
Immediately after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya
on September 11, 2012, the committee, with support from the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, began an
extensive effort to evaluate the Department of Defense's
response. In addition to assessing how the Department reacted
to the terrorist strike, the committee sought to determine what
preparations the U.S. military had made for such an event, and
what arrangements had subsequently been put into place to
minimize the possibility of a recurrence.
In 2013, the committee sent the Department three requests
for information. Hundreds of pages of written material, much of
it classified, have been received and reviewed. The committee
also convened two open hearings and five classified Member
briefings. General and flag officers and senior civilian
defense officials appeared before the committee to provide
information about the Department's actions in connection with
the attack, and to describe constraints on deploying other
forces, including drones and fighter aircraft during the
attack. The committee also heard from field-grade officers who
were in Libya at the time, or in contact with those who were,
to discern their understanding of events and the Department's
operational limitations.
The Benghazi attacks were the subject of two full committee
events this year: one briefing and one hearing. The briefing,
entitled ``Intelligence and Operations in North and East
Africa'' was held on February 6, 2013. The witnesses were Ms.
Amanda Dory, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African
Affairs; Mr. William Wechsler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism; Major
General Michael Nagata, USA, Deputy Director for Special
Operations, Joint Staff; and Mr. George Kuk, Intelligence
Analyst, Defense Intelligence Agency. The hearing, entitled
``The Posture of the U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa
Command'' was held on March 15, 2013. The witnesses were
General Carter F. Ham, USA, Commander, U.S. Africa Command, and
Admiral James G. Stavridis, USN, Commander, U.S. European
Command.
Furthermore, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held four briefings and one hearing on Benghazi
related issues. The first briefing was held on May 21, 2013,
covering ``DOD's Preparation for, and Response to, the
Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.''
Briefers were: Mr. Garry Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict, and Major General Darryl Roberson, USAF, Vice
Director, Operations, Joint Staff. The next briefing in the
series was held on June 26, 2013, and shared the same title as
the first. It focused on the activities of U.S. Africa Command
and U.S. Special Operations Command in connection with the
response to the attack. Briefers were: General Carter F. Ham,
USA (ret.), Commander of U.S. Africa Command at the time of the
assault; Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Gibson, USA, former commander,
Site Security Team, U.S. Embassy Tripoli; Rear Admiral Brian
Losey, Commander, Special Operations Command Africa.
Colonel George Bristol, Commander of Joint Special
Operations Task Force-Trans Sahara, appeared before the
subcommittee in part three of the briefing series on July 31,
2013, to describe his role in responding to the attacks. The
final briefing to date took place on October 10, 2013, when
General Martin Dempsey, USA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, appeared before the subcommittee to brief on ``The
Defense Department's force posture and response to the 2012
attacks in Benghazi, Libya.''
The sole subcommittee hearing on Benghazi was held on
September 19, 2013. Mr. Garry Reid, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict and
Major General Darryl Roberson, USAF, Vice Director, Operations,
on the Joint Staff appeared before the committee to testify on
``The Defense Department's Posture for September 11, 2013: What
are the Lessons of Benghazi?''
While the committee's inquiries continue, the committee has
found that:
(1) No Department of Defense personnel signed (or were
asked to sign) non-disclosure agreements.
(2) No Armed Forces, units, weapons, or specific personnel
that could have been readily deployed in the course of the
attack were unduly held back, told to ``stand down,'' or
refused permission to enter the fight.
(3) The posture the Department of Defense mandated for its
forces worldwide on September 11, 2012 requires further
oversight.
Furthermore, as a result of the committee's activities,
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, would direct the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the Secretary of State, to convey a report to the committee on
lessons learned from the Benghazi attack. The report would
assess the military's posture and readiness, describe the
ability of the U.S. military to respond to requests from the
Department of State for supplemental embassy security forces,
and identify possible related intelligence enhancements.
Iran
The committee continued to conduct oversight of the threat
posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear
weapon to the U.S. interests, U.S. allies, and countries in the
region of Iran. The committee received numerous staff-level
briefings and a member-level briefing in closed session on
Middle East intelligence and operations, which included
analysis on Iran.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize a report on U.S. military
partnership with the countries of the Gulf Coordination Council
(GCC), which would provide information on U.S. posture,
agreements, and sustainability of funding of such efforts.
Additionally, H.R. 3304 would authorize the United States to
conduct integrated air and missile defense training programs
with GCC allies. These legislative efforts support the
committee's oversight of U.S. military posture in the region of
Iran.
Iraq
Although U.S. forces deployed to the Republic of Iraq are
limited to those associated with the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), the committee continues to conduct
robust oversight of the security environment in Iraq and the
activities of OSC-I. The committee has received a number of
staff-level briefings on OSC-I and the security situation in
Iraq. Additionally, the committee received a member-level
briefing in closed session on Middle East intelligence and
operations, which included analysis on the situation in Iraq.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would re-authorize OSC-I and its ability to
provide training in a institutional, non-operational
environment to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, including the
Iraqi Counterterrorism Service (CTS). This section would limit
the total funding authorized for OSC-I to $209.0 million for
fiscal year 2014. Additionally, the Joint Explanatory Statement
accompanying H.R. 3304 would direct the Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, to submit a report
on the current security situation at Camp Liberty in Iraq and
efforts to relocate the camp residents to other countries. H.R.
3304 would also extend the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program
for Iraq, consistent with the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of
2007, and would authorize up to 2,500 additional visas for
potential Iraqi immigrants that worked with the U.S. military
in Iraq between March 2003 and September 2013. Finally, this
section required certain improvements in processing SIV
applications for eligible Iraqis.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Overview
The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's
budget and identified inefficiencies to capture and reinvest
savings into higher national security priorities. The Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, reflects the
fact that the Nation must examine every aspect of the defense
enterprise to find ways to accomplish the mission of providing
for the common defense more effectively.
During the first session of the 113th Congress, the
committee continued its oversight of efforts by the Department
of Defense to improve its fiscal responsibility, transparency,
and accountability, and to further identify opportunities to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee continued to
monitor the Department's efforts to implement the Financial
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan, and has given
particular attention to efforts announced by the Secretary of
Defense in July 2013, within the context of the Strategic
Choices and Management Review undertaken by the Department of
Defense, to identify cost savings through management
efficiencies and overhead reductions within the Department's
major headquarters. While such cost savings and efficiency
efforts are good government measures to undertake under any
budget conditions, they have taken on increased importance as
the Department works to absorb the cuts to defense resulting
from the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25).
Additional oversight in this area conducted during the
first session of the 113th Congress follow below.
Organization and Management of the Department of Defense
The committee continued to review the organization and
management of the Department of Defense in order to ensure that
it is properly postured to meet the complex and evolving
security threats of the 21st century. Declining resources
resulting from the Budget Control Act are driving the
Department of Defense to reevaluate its organization and
management structure to identify cost savings. Most significant
in the past year was the announcement by the Secretary of
Defense in July 2013, within the context of the Strategic
Choices and Management Review undertaken by the Department of
Defense, to identify cost savings through management
efficiencies and overhead reductions within the Department's
major headquarters. According to the Department, these
management reforms, consolidations, personnel cuts, and
spending reductions are planned to reduce the Department's
overhead and operating costs by some $10 billion over the next
5 years and almost $40 billion over the next 10 years. In
holding the Department to these objectives and ensuring these
reductions are done smartly and strategically, H.R. 3304, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would
require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for
streamlining Department of Defense management headquarters.
As a first step, in December 2013, the Secretary of Defense
announced specific changes to the organization and management
of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including a
restructure of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy; realignment of the Office of Net Assessment under the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy;
elimination of several deputy under secretary, assistant
secretary, and deputy assistance secretary positions;
realignments within the Office of the Deputy Chief Management
Officer and Office of the DOD Chief Information Officer; and
rebalance of internal resources within the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
The committee received a staff-level briefing on these
proposed organizations reforms, and it will continue to solicit
further information and analyses from the Department to ensure
that such decisions were supported by thorough business case
analyses and risk assessments. The committee has expressed some
concern about these organizational changes, specifically the
realignment of the Office of Net Assessment under the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, which is captured in
the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3304. The
committee will also continue to ensure that any reductions to
military or civilian end strength are made only following a
thorough, holistic review of the Department's manpower
requirements and the total force.
Financial Management
The committee continues to oversee military effectiveness
in this era of declining budgets. The Department of Defense has
already identified a decrease of $487.0 billion over a 10 year
period based on fiscal constraints. Additional reductions to
defense resources, to include mechanisms such as sequestration,
could affect the quality of our military force as the
Department looks to successfully perform its role in the
National Security Strategy.
The Comptroller General of the United States has
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department's
inability to track and account for billions of dollars in
funding and tangible assets continues to undermine its
management approach. It also creates a lack of transparency
that significantly limits congressional oversight. The
Department's inability to produce auditable financial
statements undermines its efforts to reform defense acquisition
processes and to realize efficiencies. Without these objective
tools, neither the Department nor Congress can verify that
greater value is being created. As a result, the committee
continues to monitor the Department's efforts to implement the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements, including
its efforts to meet the Secretary of Defense's goal of
achieving audit readiness on the Statement of Budgetary
Resources by 2014, and monitor closely the interdependencies
between FIAR and the hundreds of millions of dollars being
spent on business systems modernization programs that the
Department has proposed to address its financial management
problems.
The committee received the statutorily mandated semi-annual
updates on the FIAR plan in May and in November. Supporting the
Department's goal of achieving audit readiness by the end of
2017, H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, included a provision that would clarify the
intent of the Department to have a full and complete audit on
all fiscal year 2018 financial materials, with the results of
the audit submitted to Congress by March 31, 2019.
The committee looks forward to receiving notification that
the Statement of Budgetary Resources will be audit ready during
the 113th Congress, as the current projected date for that
certification is September 30, 2014.
Acquisition Issues
The Acquisition System and Acquisition Policy
The committee continued to provide oversight of the defense
acquisition system and to address standing concerns about cost
growth in major defense acquisition programs and the
responsiveness of the system to compelling military needs. The
committee examined potential areas for improving defense
acquisition activities to include reforming the process for
reviewing and certifying requirements for major defense
acquisition programs; reforming operational contract support;
improving the education, skills and experience of the
acquisition workforce; protecting supply availability of
strategic materials; and establishing greater transparency and
accountability in services contracting activities.
As part of its oversight, the committee examined the
military requirements process, which is the foundation for
procurement of not only weapon systems, but also contracts for
services. The committee also examined the process for
developing the cost estimates for weapon systems and included
section 814 in H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, that would strengthen acquisition
planning by requiring the original baseline cost estimate to be
reported in selected acquisition reports required by section
2432 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also
require identification and reporting of the primary risk
parameters associated with each current reported cost estimate.
Service contracting represents an increasingly important
and large proportion of the acquisition expenditures of the
Department of Defense. The committee continued to work to
reform the acquisition process to reflect this reality by
reviewing the management structure for these contracts;
increasing the visibility and transparency of these contracts
by reviewing service contract inventories; and monitoring
efforts to prevent personal and organizational conflicts of
interest.
The committee also worked aggressively to improve the
Department's ability to contract in a contingency environment.
The committee worked directly with the Joint Staff and others
to improve requirements development and planning for
operational contract support. However, more emphasis is needed
in this area and the committee will continue to address this
matter through visits to the individual combatant commands and
other engagements. The committee notes that the Department has
scheduled a joint exercise in January 2014, to specifically
focus on planning, training, execution, and management of
operational contract support. The committee applauds these
efforts and looks forward to this and other events focused on
developing the Department's ability to effectively and
efficiently contract in support of contingency operations.
Furthermore, the committee included section 821 in H.R. 3304,
which would expand prohibitions on contracting with the enemy.
This section would expand the authorities provided in section
841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (Public Law 112-239) to other geographic combatant
commands and would also make the authorities permanent.
The committee recognizes that a fundamental component in
addressing most of the problems in the acquisition process is
improving the composition and quality of the acquisition
workforce. Therefore, the committee continues to closely
monitor the development of the acquisition workforce, the
execution and management of the Department of Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, and other efforts by
the Department to expand and improve the acquisition workforce.
The committee also continued efforts to protect supply
availability of strategic materials and directed a Comptroller
General review of supply activities related to specialty metals
and expects the review to examine how Department program
officials determine their needs for specialty metal components
for major weapon systems throughout the acquisition life cycle;
how information about these needs are communicated within
Department programs, policies, and oversight offices and with
prime contractors; and the extent to which the Department has
issued waivers for specialty metals procurements in the last 5
years and the basis for these waivers. The committee looks
forward to the findings of this review.
Despite the committee's efforts in these areas, it remains
concerned about significant shortcomings in the current
acquisition system. Therefore, in October 2013, the committee
initiated an effort to examine acquisition reform efforts of
the previous decades in order to understand why these well-
intentioned reform efforts have not yet produced an improved
acquisition system. The committee also continues to work with
the Department of Defense to review the application of
regulatory frameworks so as to begin eliminating unnecessary
overhead, red tape, and bureaucracy. The committee held a
hearing on October 29, 2013, ``Twenty-five years of acquisition
reform: Where do we go from here?'' and received testimony from
a panel of outside experts.
Defense Industrial Base and Technology Transfers
The committee continued to closely monitor the health,
security and innovative capacity of the defense industrial
base, especially in light of changes to the defense strategy,
the needs for recapitalization and modernization after 12 years
of war, and budget pressures. The industrial base for complex
major weapons systems has shrunk dramatically in the past
decade, limiting the ability of the Department of Defense to
control costs and encourage innovation through the use of
competition. Industry has also struggled in many cases to make
the long-term investments that are vital to the health of the
defense industrial base, notably so in the shipbuilding
industry.
The committee also monitored implementation of recent
changes to the U.S. export control regime in order to determine
its effectiveness in preventing the transfer of sensitive
military-related technologies to potential adversaries. The
consolidation of the defense industry and its increasingly
global nature will continue to challenge the capabilities of
current systems for industrial security. The committee
monitored the Department's plans and statutory authorities for
industrial security. In addition to overseeing the
effectiveness of the Defense Security Service to carry out this
mission, the committee continues to examine traditional
mechanisms for industrial security, such as the personnel
security clearance process and the National Industrial Security
Program, as well as other areas where adversaries could exploit
vulnerabilities or loop holes in the acquisition process to
undermine the U.S. defense industrial base.
Information Technology and Business Systems
Information technology (IT) systems are critical enablers
for the Department of Defense. As the IT budget represents
nearly $33 billion of the Department of Defense's total budget,
it also represents a major investment area requiring the same
rigorous planning and oversight as any other complex major
weapon system. The Department recognized this area as a source
of greater efficiencies and has managed to reduce spending in
IT by several billion dollars across the Future Years Defense
Program. The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats, and Capabilities continued reviewing the
Department's IT investment planning and acquisitions to reduce
unwarranted duplication and eliminate programs of little value
to the warfighter. The committee has paid particular attention
to the various IT business systems of the Department where
egregious programmatic failures, such as the Air Force's
Expeditionary Combat Support System, have occurred, and which
are also critical components in the Department's strategy to
achieve auditability.
The committee held a related hearing on March 13, 2013, on
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force.'' In addition to
hearings, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats,
and Capabilities held briefings on Department of Defense
Electromagnetic Pulse as required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
Additionally, the subcommittee conducted detailed oversight of
specific programmatic issues related to IT.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 passed by the House, the committee included a
directive related to information technology, requiring a
briefing on the progress of implementing an IT-specific
acquisition process for the Department of Defense.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions
related to information technology, including: a strategy on
improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility; a
limitation on funds for Air Force Logistics modernization; a
briefing on the biometric activities of the Department of
Defense; a revision to the reporting requirement for annual
submission of information regarding information technology
capital assets; modification of reporting requirement for
Department of Defense business systems; a change in the report
for critical changes to major automated information systems; a
revision to the definition for legacy systems in Defense
business enterprise architecture; and an extension of the
information technology exchange program.
READINESS
Strategic Military Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics,
maintenance, military construction, installations, family
housing, and the base closure and realignment process. The
subcommittee also provided oversight on civilian personnel,
energy security, and environmental issues that affect the
Department of Defense. The committee visited numerous overseas
bases to assess the skills of assigned forces, the material
condition of equipment, the readiness challenges associated
with the forces, along with the appropriate application of
military construction in the overseas and contingency
operations environments. Specifically, the committee has
conducted numerous oversight visits to the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan and examined U.S. Central Command's plans to
sustain operations while simultaneously withdrawing forces and
equipment. The committee continues to assess the logistics and
readiness challenges facing the Department of Defense as it
implements these plans.
The Department's implementation of the Defense Strategic
Guidance focused on the rebalance to the Asia Pacific region
remained a key area of oversight. The committee continues to
assess Department of Defense force-generation capabilities, its
ability to return to full-spectrum operations in a peacetime
environment, and the alignment of military forces to fulfill
two primary strategic demands: rotational presence and
contingency availability. Under sequestration-level funding,
however, the military cannot continue to operate at current
levels and provide a fully ready, globally responsive force in
the manner that ensures the morale, welfare, and safety of U.S.
Armed Forces. The committee will continue to monitor the impact
of sequestration as required under the Budget Control Act of
2011 (Public Law 112-25) into the foreseeable future.
Force Readiness
The declining state of force readiness remains the
committee's highest priority. The committee will continue to
examine the readiness of deployed personnel supporting ongoing
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, in addition
to the ability of the services to conduct full-spectrum combat
missions should the need arise and to maintain capabilities to
posture the force in the decades to come. The committee will
also closely monitor the impacts of sequestration on
operational tempo and current readiness shortfalls in
equipment, personnel, and training to include flying hours,
steaming days, and full-spectrum training miles. In support of
this effort, the committee held hearings on the potential
financial implications of another round of base closure and
realignment actions, the Navy's readiness posture, Army and
Marine Corps reset, Air Force reductions in force structure,
the civilian workforce, and U.S. force posture in the Pacific
Area of Responsibility. The committee also examined the impact
of budget cuts to the Department of Defense and held a series
of classified briefings for both members of the committee and
non-committee members on the resulting challenges in
maintaining readiness.
The committee noted that during the first quarter of the
previous fiscal year, overall readiness trends improved for
non-deployed units across the force, including equipment
availability and condition, personnel, and training in fiscal
year 2013. However, the impacts of sequestration and top-line
budget reductions challenged readiness in the latter portion of
the year across almost all readiness areas. The committee found
that these shortfalls present a concerning increase in national
security risk which poses challenges to planning and executing
emergent contingencies. Specifically, the committee notes the
cancellation of 6 Navy deployments, and 2 additional deferred,
the grounding of 17 Air Force fighter squadrons, the
cancellation of 7 Army combat training center rotations, the
cancellation and de-scoping of multiple multilateral and joint
exercises, and the acute impact of civilian personnel
furloughs. The committee will continue to monitor these trends
during the remaining congressional session.
To better understand the unique challenges sequestration
presents to the readiness of the total force, in the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee directs
the Government Accountability Office to review readiness trends
and risks within the military departments, the Department as a
whole, and the geographic combatant commands. The committee
also proposed several changes to the Quarterly Readiness Report
to Congress, requiring the Department to provide greater
clarity and visibility on changes to military readiness both
within geographic combatant commands and the Defense combat
support agencies. Additionally, the committee conducted
hearings, site visits, and briefings focused on how these
trends impact planned force structure and resource allocations
as well as possible future force structure reductions mandated
by the Strategic Choices and Management Review completed by the
Department in July 2013.
With the ongoing drawdown of operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, the committee anticipates a continuing
realignment of funds from the Department's Overseas Contingency
Operations budget to the operation and maintenance base budgets
to better represent normalized budget requirements, to
accommodate training across the full spectrum of conflict, and
to reset war-torn equipment. However, the committee remains
deeply concerned about the viability of fully resetting the
force if sequestration runs the full 10-year course. To address
these issues, H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, would require the Department of Defense
to examine closely its Afghan retrograde logistics chain,
encourage smarter use of resources by examining the logistics
roles and missions of the military departments and the Defense
Logistics Agency, and provide additional resources for reset
and reconstitution. The committee will continue to monitor the
Services' compliance with this requirement as it monitors the
reset strategies to repair, recapitalize, and replace equipment
used in ongoing operations and progress toward complete
reconstitution of prepositioned stocks. The committee believes
that full reset remains at risk in a constrained budget
environment. Subsequently, the committee will provide rigorous
oversight of ongoing property accountability and retrograde
efforts aimed at returning equipment with remaining military
value to home station. Further, the committee will continue to
monitor the disposition of non-standard equipment returning
from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to ensure that
important items are incorporated into units' tables of
equipment, are budgeted for and sustained properly, and that
items no longer of military utility are disposed of in the most
cost-effective manner possible.
The committee found that while readiness has largely
remained steady for deployed or next-to-deploy forces,
specifically within the Army, this readiness has continued to
be at the expense of non-deployed ground-force units. The
committee remains concerned about the number of non-deployed
units reporting that they are not ready for combat operations,
or would need additional time, personnel, and equipment to
prepare for deployment, and intends to hold additional hearings
on how additional force structure changes or budget cuts would
further exacerbate force readiness levels. While the Army's
overseas contingency budget request decreased in fiscal year
2014, the base budget saw a slight increase to support the
reset of equipment that has been damaged or worn out through 10
years of high demand, and also to support increased home-
station training for full-spectrum operations as the Army
commits fewer units to combat operations. However,
sequestration has challenged this effort and delayed expected
improvements in readiness across the Army.
Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of the Army
reset process. However, the committee remains concerned about
the Army's ability to absorb another round of sequestration-
driven reductions without impacting reset needed for current
operations and those likely to be undertaken in the future and
intends to hold hearings on the issue. The committee also found
through several briefings and hearings that readiness
shortfalls are especially prevalent within the National Guard
and Reserve Components. While these shortfalls are expected to
stabilize if sequestration is avoided in fiscal year 2014,
further cuts in funding could seriously challenge the ability
of the Reserve Component to remain operationally ready. To
address this trend in both the Active and Reserve Components,
H.R. 3304 provides additional resources for additional flying
hours, training miles, training center rotations, and depot
maintenance.
The committee found that the Air Force continues to
experience a high operational tempo, which has resulted in
detrimental effects on equipment such as engine and structural
fatigue, deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of
component failures. The increased tempo also delays routine
maintenance. As a result, the committee intends to continue its
review of the significant shortfalls experienced by the Air
Force in depot maintenance, particularly in its baseline
program for Active and Reserve forces which the Air Force has
made up only through Overseas Contingency Operations funding.
The committee also has found that challenges are expected to
persist as operational tempo is anticipated to remain at high
levels during the drawdown of U.S. forces supporting Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, such as what occurred during
Operation Northern Watch following Operation Desert Storm, or
even more recently with simultaneous operations in Libya. This
will be particularly problematic for the Air Guard and Reserve
as they also continue to provide support for U.S. domestic
operations, which was highlighted during the Subcommittee on
Readiness hearing on the Army and Air Reserve Components.
Despite the drawdown in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, Navy operational tempo is expected to remain high,
as demand for naval assets continues to increase as a result of
the rebalance to the Pacific and other regional commands. The
committee remains concerned about the size of the fleet based
on current downward demands, particularly in light of years of
degraded maintenance on the Navy's non-nuclear surface fleet,
sustained high operational tempo, and a reset cost associated
with restoring those assets. The committee remains concerned
about the Navy's readiness to meet combatant commander demands,
particularly in light of sequestration, which is expected to
degrade the Navy's ability to provide surge capacity. The
committee requested the Government Accountability Office review
the Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface
combatant ship material readiness. Additionally, H.R. 3304
includes additional funds for ship and aircraft depot
maintenance to address the backlog of requirements and to
prevent further degradation to the fleet as well as funds to
address the combat forces equipment shortfall.
The committee has also monitored the impacts of higher
operational tempo and sequestration on the Marine Corps and its
missions. The committee has closely monitored the Marine Corps'
reset operation to replace and refurbish equipment and vehicles
damaged in wartime operations in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, specifically combat vehicles,
the Armored Amphibious Vehicle, rotary-wing aircraft, and the
repair and refurbishment of communications equipment and crew-
served weapons as well as its collective training activities
and the resumption of the Unit Deployment Program which remains
challenged as a result of sequestration. Through hearings and
site visits, the committee expressed concern about the Marine
Corps' ability to reset its force in a budget-constrained
environment as well as its ability to meet the current one
major contingency operation construct with an end strength
below the 186,800 Marines recommended by the Force Posture
Review and the proposed retirement of two additional amphibious
ships in the President's budget request. To ensure that the
Marine Corps remains ready for current operations, H.R. 1960,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as
passed by the House, contained additional resources for the
growth of the Marine Security Guard Program in response to
events in Benghazi, Libya, the Special Purpose Marine Air-
Ground Task Force constitution in Rota, Spain, and for training
days and exercises.
Depot and Arsenal Capability
The committee continues to conduct oversight of the health
of the organic industrial base in a declining workload
environment, particularly as the end of combat operations in
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan draws near. A critical
aspect of equipment sustainment is the capability provided by
the Nation's organic arsenals and depots, including air
logistics centers and shipyards. Realizing the resultant strain
on the organic industrial base, accompanied by the cuts
required by sequestration, the committee continues to closely
monitor the volume, location, and types of maintenance and
manufacturing performed at the depots and arsenals in the
United States and in forward-deployed locations. While some
military departments have completed an organic industrial base
sustainment plan, the committee remains concerned that the
Department of Defense continues to lack a comprehensive
strategy to ensure U.S. military depots and arsenals have the
workforce, equipment, and facilities for efficient operations
to meet the Nation's current requirements, as well as those in
the future. The committee will continue oversight of depot and
arsenal operations and management, focusing on capital
investment in facilities and equipment, the implementation
methodology and use of sustainment concepts such as
performance-based logistics, the role of public-private
partnerships, the use of working capital funds for timely
product improvement, and the services' logistics enterprise
resource planning systems. Furthermore, the committee will
continue to examine how recent efficiency initiatives and
workforce reductions impact depot and arsenal capability, as
well as programs and initiatives designed to assure
availability of critical organic manufacturing capabilities.
The committee has directed that arsenals be utilized for
defense manufacturing to a greater extent when no commercial
alternative can be found and provided authority for arsenals to
submit proposals to solicitations for critical manufacturing
within their respective areas of expertise as part of H.R.
3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014. Members and staff have also visited several depot and
arsenal locations to provide oversight and more fully assess
current operational impacts of sequestration.
Civilian Personnel
The Department of Defense has long relied on the Federal
civilian workforce to support its missions around the world,
often requiring civilians to serve in active combat zones, and
it is clear that the Department's civilian workforce plays a
critical role in the readiness of U.S. military forces. H.R.
3304, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,
included provisions that would extend authorities for premium
pay and allowances, benefits and gratuities for deployed
civilians. The committee has also continued to closely monitor
the implementation of the each military department's
efficiencies initiatives, including the Department's Strategic
Choices and Management Review, which focuses on the civilian
workforce. These initiatives have led to a civilian hiring
freeze for all military departments as well as significant
personnel reductions which started in 2010 and remain in
effect.
The committee focused significant oversight efforts on the
civilian furlough decision announced by the Secretary of
Defense on May 14, 2013, imposing an 11-day furlough (later
decreased to 6 days) on the civilian workforce. The committee
remains concerned about the effects of the furlough and Federal
Government shutdown on the morale of the force which has
already suffered from the civilian hiring freeze, layoffs of
temporary workers, cuts in facilities maintenance and other
disruptive factors on the working environment. Such oversight
efforts will continue for the remainder of the 113th Congress.
Energy and Environment
Energy Security
The committee conducted vigorous oversight of the
Department's energy activities and closely examined the
strategies and policies for both installation energy and
operational energy to reduce consumption and dependence on
foreign oil while promoting good stewardship of taxpayer money
with demonstrated returns on investment. The committee believes
that Department of Defense installations provide significant
opportunities for reducing energy demand through appropriate
use of renewable energy technologies combined with energy
security. In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the final Quadrennial Defense Review assessment
include details regarding the importance of, and funding
necessary to achieve, energy security. Likewise, the committee
report directed and the the committee subsequently received
briefings from the Department of Defense regarding power and
energy research at University Affiliated Research Centers,
alternative power applications on military installations,
direct solar and other energy efficient technologies on
military installations, decentralized steam generation, and
energy collaboration and technology transition. H.R. 3304, the
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2014, also
includes several provisions focused on alternative fuel and
installation energy specifically.
Environment
The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to
include the military services' environmental restoration
program and adherence to Federal, state and local cleanup,
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. H.R. 3304,
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,
addressed modifications to the Sikes Act to include a 5-year
reauthorization and permitting the ability to use funds to
match for cost-sharing requirements. The committee also
continued its oversight and provided clarification regarding
the prohibition of burn pits. Additionally, in the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2014, the committee continues
oversight regarding the Department of Defense's ability to
operate in the Arctic, directing a roadmap for 2020-30, as well
as concerns regarding the Military Ocean Terminal Concord,
California, and finally directs an audit of the impacts of
encroachment on national security and the Department of
Defense's ability to train and operate on its defense
installations.
As further directed by the committee report, the committee
received a briefing from the Department of Defense regarding
environmental exposures and the Department of Defense's
processes to minimize exposure and seek technological
solutions.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Basing
The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant
change in force structure both in the United States and
overseas as a result of the drawdown of military forces from
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Global Defense Posture
Review, and budgetary pressures being placed on the Department
of Defense. These rebasing movements affect not only U.S.
global presence, but they may also have significant impacts to
readiness, surge capability, military construction, and quality
of life for military members and their families.
The committee has been specifically interested in ensuring
the Department of Defense has the requisite tools and
capabilities to support the rebalance effort in the Pacific.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, includes a provision that would restrict certain
construction funds to support the realignment of military
forces from Okinawa to Guam or Hawaii until specific conditions
are completed including: submission of a report required by
section 1068(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239); mater plans for the
Marine Corps distributed laydown on Guam and Hawaii; and, a
coordinated Federal agencies plan to provide public
infrastructure on Guam. H.R. 3304 would provide several
exceptions to the restrictions authorizing the expenditure of
funds to support a certain military construction project, funds
to support planning and design activities on Guam, and funds to
continue environmental analyses associated with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for support of the realignment
of Marine Corps assets to Guam. H.R. 3304 also includes
specific authority to initiate certain Air Force military
construction projects that would harden certain hangars and
fuel points to ensure the survivability of these critical
nodes.
The committee also assessed the Department of Defense's
request for an additional round of Base Closure and Realignment
(BRAC). After contemplating information provided by the
Department of Defense in support of its request for an
additional round of BRAC, H.R. 3304 included language stating
that nothing in the Act shall be construed to authorize a
future BRAC round. In addition, H.R. 3304 reduced the budget
request for Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance by $8.0
million, the funding requested by the Department to develop
recommendations and manage a new BRAC round.
The committee was also concerned about the use of host
nation funding sources on military construction projects and
potential abuses to this program that have occurred over the
last several years. H.R. 3304 included a requirement to obtain
a specific congressional authorization to use host nation
funding in support of projects in excess of the military
construction authority provided in section 2805 of title 10,
United States Code.
Military Construction Programming
The committee continued its efforts focused on construction
programming to provide combatant commanders limited authority
to rapidly implement contingency construction to address
emerging construction requirements. H.R. 3304, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, contains a
provision that would authorize the use of operations and
maintenance funds for contingency construction.
The committee continues to support initiatives to
streamline existing military construction programming
authorities and H.R. 3304 would expand the authority for
military laboratories to implement construction projects and
require local installation security assessments to determine
the appropriate level of anti-terrorism/force protection
criteria to insert in future construction projects. Finally,
H.R. 3304 would delete certain outdated reporting requirement
previously provided to Congress.
Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal
The real property management process requires extensive
oversight to maintain more than $810.0 billion in
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $50.0 billion, or
nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. To
ensure proper oversight of this real property inventory, the
committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 expressed
concern about the extensive use of existing leasing authorities
and requested the Comptroller General of the United States to
assess the magnitude of Department of Defense leasing efforts.
The committee report also included a requirement for the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report on
the Department of Defense's efforts to improve the accuracy of
its real property inventory database and the impact on
consolidations activities to this database. Additionally, H.R.
3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014, required a report to assess the current use utilization
rates of the Department of Defense real property inventory.
The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense
facility sustainment accounts and found that significant
shortfalls need to be addressed to manage basic services. H.R.
3304 increased funding to these accounts to address critical
shortfalls in the facility sustainment accounts to partially
support systemic facility sustainment deficits.
Military Infrastructure Privatization
The Department of Defense has made extensive use of
privatization of military assets including family housing,
bachelor quarters, and utility-related infrastructure. The
Department has leveraged available capital in Department of
Defense infrastructure and entered into long-term contracts
with private property managers. H.R. 3304, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would provide
additional oversight and accountability in the pursuit of
military family housing privatization projects to include an
assessment of litigation costs that are being pursued by the
privatization partners.
TOTAL FORCE, PERSONNEL, AND HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Manpower Sufficient in Quantity and Quality To Meet Global Commitments
The committee continued to provide oversight of military
manpower levels and force structure during the first session of
the 113th Congress. The committee remains concerned with the
impact sequestration will have on the ability of the services
to maintain manpower levels sufficient to meet the National
Military Strategy.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on
February 27, 2013, to receive testimony from the Acting Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the
Service personnel chiefs regarding the impact of sequestration,
the continuing resolution and the Budget Control Act (Public
Law 112-25) on end strength drawdown plans. At the time of the
hearing, there was much uncertainty over the future of
sequestration and the committee had not yet received the
President's budget request.
The committee supported the end strengths of the services
as requested in the President's budget in H.R. 1960, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as
passed by the House on June 14, 2013. Following House passage
of H.R. 1960, the Secretary of Defense's Strategic Choices and
Management Review (SCMR) was released, which recommended
further adjustments to the Services' force structure and end
strength plans. These adjustments were primarily based on
projected budgetary concerns, instead of strategic analysis of
national security mission requirements. The SCMR recommended
accelerating the reductions for the Army and Marine Corps to
the pre-sequester end strength targets of 490,000 for the Army
and 182,100 for the Marine Corps by the end of fiscal year
2015, two years before originally anticipated. Based on these
changes, as part of H.R. 3304, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee supported
the Army and Marine Corps adjusted reductions by lowering the
minimum end strength levels for fiscal year 2014, as well as
adjusted the limitations on annual reductions for the Army and
Marine Corps imposed in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239).
The new, most optimistic end-state based on the SCMR
recommendations would shrink the Army to 420,000 from 450,000;
and the Marine Corps to between 170,000 and 175,000. The
committee remains concerned that unfettered reductions in end
strength will have a detrimental impact on force structure and
ultimately, operational mission capability and capacity among
the services, and harm the morale of the force.
Military Benefits
The committee continued to closely monitor compensation
programs during the first session of the 113th Congress to
ensure an adequate quality of life for service members and
their families and to ensure that pay and benefits meet the
needs of the wartime military and keep pace with private sector
standards. The committee's active oversight of these issues led
the committee as part of H.R. 1960, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House
on June 7, 2013, to recommend no change to current law, which
would allow a 1.8 percent raise in basic pay during fiscal year
2014 based on section 1009 of title 37, United States Code. It
is the intent of the underlying law to ensure military pay
raises match the rate of compensation increases in the private
sector as measured by the Employment Cost Index. Following
passage of H.R. 1960, the President used his authority and
notified Congress that he was setting the 2014 military basic
pay raise at 1.0 percent, well below the Employment Cost Index.
Consistent with the position of the House, H.R. 3304, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,
neither affirms or rejects the President's decision. However,
in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-103) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee expressed concern that future pay raise proposals
that are below the Employment Cost Index may have long term
adverse consequences on the recruiting and retention of a high-
quality All-Volunteer Force.
The committee extended the authorities to pay bonuses and
special pays during fiscal year 2014 and monitored the value of
those bonuses and special pays to ensure they were sufficient
to achieve the recruiting and retention objectives for which
they were developed. The committee also included legislation
that reforms and prevents a retired pay inversion for members
whose retired pay is computed under the high-three average. The
committee continues to closely monitor the progress of the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission,
authorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as they continue their work to
develop recommendations for the modernization of the military
compensation and retirement system. On September 12, 2013,
pursuant to section 674(c) of Public Law 112-239, the President
transmitted his principles for modernizing the military
compensation and retirement systems.
Military Family Readiness
The United States remains a Nation at war. Consequently,
the families of the members of the Armed Forces continue to
experience the strains associated with repeated deployments. In
this regard, the committee focused on the needs of military
families to identify the programs and policies that can be
developed or enhanced to improve their lives.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, and the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-103) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 continued the effort to
provide family programs as the Department of Defense and the
military services conducted reviews of existing family programs
in light of end strength reductions and shrinking resources.
Recognizing the unique challenges faced by families of service
members assigned to special operations forces, H.R. 1960, as
passed by the House, authorized the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command to conduct pilot programs to assess the
benefits of U.S. Special Operations Command providing family
support activities in addition family support programs provided
by the military services.
In addition, to assist in the committee's oversight efforts
regarding stress on military families related to multiple
deployments, the committee included the requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to review the ability of the military
services to collect and analyze suicide among family members
and report on the feasibility of collecting and retaining such
data.
Mental Health Services for Members of the Armed Forces
The committee continued to focus on the adequacy and
effectiveness of mental health services provided to members of
the Armed Forces and their families. Of particular concern are
the mental health resources for members of the military
services especially while they are deployed. H.R. 1960, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as
passed by the House, addressed this concern by including a
provision that requires person-to-person mental health exams
every 180 days while a service member is deployed. In addition,
the House passed bill provided for the continuity of mental
health care for services members leaving military service by
including a provision that extends the Transitional Assistance
Management Program (TAMP) an additional 180 days for behavioral
health care using telemedicine
Particular attention was given to the suicide prevention
efforts undertaken by each military service and the development
of the comprehensive Department of Defense policy on prevention
of suicide among members of the Armed Forces. In this regard,
the committee also focused on mental health issues that may
ultimately result in suicide, such as the incidence of alcohol
abuse among service members and their families and treatment
for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain
injury (TBI). H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, included the
recommendation that the Department of Defense consider a
systems medicine approach to improve the research and
development of PTSD and TBI.
On March 21, 2013, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
conducted a hearing to receive testimony from the military
services on the current status of suicide prevention programs
in the military. The hearing provided Members with the
opportunity to examine the implementation of suicide prevention
programs in each of the military services.
On April 10, 2013, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
conducted a hearing to receive testimony from the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the military services on how DOD funded
research on mental health related matters, specifically PTSD
and TBI, has improved the treatment of mental health conditions
for members of the military and their family members.
On September 17, 2013, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel received a briefing from the Defense Center of
Excellence on Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.
On November 15, 2013, the committee received a briefing on
the research findings conducted under the Mindfulness-Based
Mind Fitness Training Pilot Research in cooperation with the
Army and Marine Corps.
Military Health Care System
The committee remained committed to a robust military
health system which provides quality health care for service
members, retirees, and their families. As such, the committee
continued to exercise vigorous oversight on the military health
system. Committee oversight activities included staff visits to
several military medical facilities, including medical
facilities that are currently under construction. The committee
continued to address the cost of providing health care to
military beneficiaries as well as the out-of-pocket cost of
health care for beneficiaries. Additionally, the committee
focused on the reforms to the military health system through
briefings by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) on the congressionally mandated
reports on the military health system governance reform
implementation plan.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, and the committee
report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 included several
legislative provisions and reporting requirements on the
military health system. Among others, these include provisions
relating to the shortcomings of the March 2013 DOD report on
the Military Health System (MHS) governance reform, a GAO
review of consolidated medical training at the Medical
Education Training Campus, a one-time opt-in for TRICARE prime
for beneficiaries who live in certain zip codes and
requirements for the DOD-VA integrated electronic health
record.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would direct the Secretary of Defense to
complete implementation of the Healthcare Artifact and Image
Management Solution (HAIMS) within 180 days following enactment
of the Act.
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Programs and Military Resale Programs
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and military resale
programs (commonly known as commissary and exchange stores) are
a valuable benefit to the all-volunteer force. Critics have
continued to target these programs as being unnecessary and
wasteful, and have proposed to reduce or eliminate appropriated
funding. The committee rejects such assertions and believes
cost efficient sustainment of MWR and military resale programs
(commissaries and exchanges) is required to protect quality of
life for military families and their communities and help
ensure the readiness of the force. In its oversight efforts,
the committee held several meetings with the Department of
Defense to discuss initiatives to gain efficiencies in the
management and delivery of MWR programs at every level, to
include installation level. The Subcommittee on Military
Personnel met in an open hearing on November 20, 2013, titled
``Military Resale Programs Overview'' in order to discuss how
the military resale community will continue to provide benefits
to service members, families and retirees in a fiscally
constrained environment. The committee will continue to provide
oversight of these vitally important programs in the second
session of the 113th Congress.
Prisoner of War and Missing in Action
Over the past several years, the committee has maintained
active oversight of the Department of Defense's Prisoner of
War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) activities, as the committee of
jurisdiction. That oversight led to the requirement that the
Department of Defense reform the POW/MIA accounting effort and
achieve significantly higher levels of identification by 2015.
The committee continued its oversight role by receiving updates
from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/Missing
Personnel Affairs and the Commander of Joint POW/MIA Accounting
Command (JPAC) on their plans to achieve the legislative
mandate to increase the number of identifications to a rate of
200 per year by 2015. The committee also received the
Comptroller General of the United States review as directed by
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to conduct a
review of the Secretary of Defense's efforts to significantly
increase the capability and capacity of the Department of
Defense to account for missing persons in accordance with
section 1509 of title 10, United States.
Based on the Comptroller General's review and media reports
on an internal study completed by JPAC, the committee held a
hearing on August 1, 2013, to discuss the results of both
studies and the challenges of the POW/MIA accounting community
to increase identifications. The committee is pleased the
Secretary of Defense concurred with the Comptroller General's
recommendations but remains concerned with the Secretary's
efforts to increase the effectiveness, integration, capability,
and capacity to account for missing persons. The committee
eagerly awaits the Director of the Cost, Assessment and Program
and Evaluation (CAPE) review and recommendation on how the
Department should proceed, as well as the results of the
Department of Defense Inspector General's investigation into
allegations of fraud, waste and abuse at JPAC in order to
determine if further legislation is required. The committee is
expected to continue its active oversight of POW/MIA issues.
Sexual Assault in the Military
The committee continued to hold the Department of Defense
and the military services accountable to address sexual
assaults in the military and ensure victims are provided the
appropriate care and support. As a result of this aggressive
oversight, H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act,
as passed by the House, contained substantial, bipartisan
reforms, especially to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice would:
(1) Strip commanders of their authority to dismiss a
finding by a court martial, a power they have held since the
earliest days of our military;
(2) Prohibit commanders from overturning or reducing guilty
findings to guilty of a lesser offense;
(3) Limit commander's authority to modify adjudged
sentences;
(4) Establish minimum sentencing guidelines where service
members are found guilty of sexual assault related offenses.
Currently, such guidelines only exist in the military for the
crimes of murder and espionage.
(5) Enable the victim of a crime to provide the convening
authority materials for the convening authority's post-trial
for consideration;
(6) Set guidelines for defense council interviews of the
victim; and,
(7) Require the provision of victims' counsels, qualified
and specially trained lawyers in each of the services, to be
made available to provide legal assistance to the victims of
sex-related offenses;
(8) Articulate the rights of a crime victim;
(9) Require both the Secretary of Defense and the
independent panel established in the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA to
assess the current role and authorities of commanders in the
administration of military justice and the investigation,
prosecution, and adjudication of offenses under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice.
H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, included other reforms
to complement the reforms made to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. Those additional reforms would:
(1) Allow victims of sexual assault to apply for a
permanent change of station or unit transfer, while authorizing
the Secretary of Defense to inform commanders of their
authority to remove or temporarily reassign service members who
are the alleged perpetrators of sexual assault;
(2) Add rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to
the protected; communications of service members with a Member
of Congress or an Inspector General.
(3) Increase commander accountability, and help establish a
military culture intolerant of sexual assaults through improved
security as well as health and welfare inspections;
(4) Mandate the processing for administrative separation of
any service member guilty of an inappropriate and prohibited
relationship, communication, conduct, or contact, including
when such an action is consensual, with a prospective member of
the Armed Forces or a member undergoing entry-level processing
or training; and,
(5) Direct the Government Accountability Office to review
implementation of the Air Force corrective actions following
the sexual misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, further strengthens the reforms. These
reforms would:
(1) Require the completion of a preliminary hearing,
(Article 32, UCMJ) prior to referral to a general court-martial
for trial of any charge or specification.
(2) Change Article 32, UCMJ proceedings to a preliminary
hearing to determine probable cause; and,
(3) Require decisions by a convening authority not to refer
charges of sex-related offenses to trial by court-martial in
cases where the staff judge advocate recommends that the
charges be referred to be reviewed by the secretary of the
military service.
Wounded Warrior Care
The committee devoted substantial attention on the adequacy
of the Department of Defense policies and programs for wounded
and disabled service members and their families. In this
regard, the committee oversight activities included several
staff visits to the military service's units responsible for
the care, recovery and transition of wounded, ill and injured
service members. Committee staff also visited several defense
centers of excellence to assess the progress towards providing
wounded, ill and injured service members new and innovative
treatment and technology to improve recovery and quality of
life.
The committee continued to monitor, through quarterly
briefings with DOD and the military services, progress toward
reducing the time a service member remains in the Integrated
Disability Evaluation System and the backlog of cases awaiting
completion.
On September 17, 2013, the committee received a briefing
from the DOD-VA Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health
and Traumatic Brain Injury, Hearing and Vision on research
regarding visual dysfunction related to Traumatic Brain Injury
and implementation of the Comptroller General's recommendations
to prevent hearing loss.
MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES
Overview
During the 113th Congress, particular attention has been
given by the committee to the examination of military equipment
modernization strategies with respect to military capability.
The committee conducted oversight of the full range of
modernization and investment issues facing the Department of
Defense, to include the impacts of budget uncertainty and
sequestration. How Congress chooses to fund Department of
Defense future acquisition programs will dramatically affect
the size, health, age, and supporting industrial base of the
air, sea, and land force structure available to U.S. forces to
support the National Military Strategy and current strategic
defense planning guidance, as well as the Nation's vital
interests. The committee remained concerned by continued cost
growth and schedule delays among all categories of acquisition
programs. The committee continued to assess the need for
legislative action by examining causes of these problems
including: late determination of requirements, requirements
growth, failure to properly control requirements changes;
inadequate analyses of alternatives, concurrency in test and
evaluation, military services proceeding prematurely with
development with immature technology; poor cost estimating;
inadequate funding profiles; over-estimation of potential
production rates; and program instability.
In particular, the committee examined whether the military
services have the appropriate authorities, capabilities, and
force structure to defend against any potential challenges
posed by the advanced anti-access capabilities of countries
such as China and Iran, consistent with the report of the 2010
Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review which found
that, ``Anti-access strategies seek to deny outside countries
the ability to project power into a region, thereby allowing
aggression or other destabilizing actions to be conducted by
the anti-access power. Without dominant capabilities to project
power, the integrity of U.S. alliances and security
partnerships could be called into question, reducing U.S.
security and influence and increasing the possibility of
conflict.''
Army and Marine Corps Armored Vehicle Modernization
The committee focused on oversight of the Army and Marine
Corps' ambitious and evolving plans to recapitalize their
entire fleets of heavy and medium-weight armored combat
vehicles, including the M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting
Vehicles, Stryker Combat Vehicles, the Expeditionary Fighting
Vehicle, the Marine Personnel Carrier program, upgrades for
Light Armored Vehicles, upgrades to Paladin artillery systems,
and replacement of Army M113 series vehicles.
In particular, the committee focused on ensuring that the
existing fleet of armored vehicles is properly upgraded and
reset after very heavy use in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and that the Army continues to
field vehicles that stay ahead of the evolving anti-vehicle
threat posed by improvised explosive devices and advances in
anti-tank guided missiles. In addition to ensuring
modernization of existing armored vehicles, the committee
continued aggressive efforts to oversee and shape the evolving
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program and the follow-on effort to
the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), the Amphibious Combat
Vehicle (ACV) through formal activities to include hearings,
briefings, official correspondence, and senior level meetings.
The committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces, and the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Expeditionary Forces has focused on understanding the basis of
these requirements for the GCV and ACV as they pertain to their
respective Analysis of Alternatives, containing program costs,
and ensuring appropriate and thorough testing is complete for
both systems before moving forward in development and
procurement. The committee has also worked closely with the
Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget
Office to conduct continuous oversight and evaluation of major
development programs as necessary. These oversight efforts also
included official hearings, site visits, close coordination
with Army and Marine Corps leadership, and careful scrutiny of
reprogramming requests.
The committee remained concerned about the Army's proposal
to let the Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) vehicle
production lines go ``cold'' for 3-to-4 years and the
associated impact this decision would have on the industrial
base at both the prime contractor and vendor level. The
committee also believes that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) may
help to mitigate some of the risk to the industrial base, but
believes FMS alone will not be enough to ensure that the ABCT
industrial base is maintained at viable levels in the near
term.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, authorized full
funding for the GCV program. The bill would also restrict the
Army from obligating technology development funds until the
Secretary of the Army submits a report to the defense
committees that provides Congress with more detailed
information regarding the current program requirements and
acquisition strategy. H.R. 1960 also mandates an annual
reporting requirement on the ACV program by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). Finally, H.R. 1960, as passed by
the House, authorized $243.0 million in additional funding to
allow for the continued sustainment of America's heavy armored
vehicle production base by maintaining at least minimum
sustained production for Abrams tank upgrades and heavy
improved recovery vehicles.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would direct an additional $165.0 million for
ABCT industrial base sustainment, and supported the provisions
contained in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, with minor
technical and clarifying amendments.
Army and Marine Corps Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
The committee remained concerned over the challenges facing
the Army and Marine Corps in managing the magnitude of their
tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) fleet to include the associated
industrial bases, during this economic downturn and fiscally
constrained environment. During the 113th Congress, the
committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and
Land Forces, through formal hearings, briefings, and active
engagement with senior Department of Defense officials, as well
as auditors from the Government Accountability Office continued
to provide oversight on the DOD's TWV fleets. The committee
focused oversight efforts on the Army and Marine Corps' TWV
modernization strategies for their families of light, medium,
and heavy TWVs, the family of mine resistant ambush protected
(MRAP) vehicles, line haul tractor trailers, and construction
equipment. In particular, the committee focused on ensuring
that the existing fleet of TWVs and MRAPs are properly
modernized and reset after very heavy operational use in the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
The committee also continued to closely monitor the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The JLTV program
represents a significant investment by the Army and Marine
Corps in developing a new light tactical vehicle that would
address current capability gaps in performance, protection, and
payload. JLTV is the only new major defense acquisition program
for TWVs across the future years defense program and is
critical for the sustainment of the industrial base. The
committee remains concerned over potential impacts of
sequestration on the JLTV program.
H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, authorized $134.6
million, the full amount requested for the JLTV program. H.R.
3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014, would direct $134.6 million, the full amount requested
for JLTV program.
Army Aviation Programs
During the 113th Congress, the committee provided oversight
on legacy rotorcraft platforms, including the CH-47, UH-60, AH-
64, and OH-58, continued to note the importance of these
platforms, as well as indicated that they will likely continue
to be operated at high operational tempos, in very challenging
environments. The committee has highlighted the need to
continue to upgrade and reset this critical equipment platforms
for both the Active and Reserve Components through formal
activities that included a field hearing. In addition to its
oversight of aviation requirements for, and performance in,
combat operations, the committee has closely monitored the
Army's future force program for aviation. In particular, the
committee has focused on the Army's restructured acquisition
plan resulting from the cancellation of the Armed
Reconnaissance Helicopter, the initiation of modernization
programs such as the Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) program,
and the critical need for aircraft survivability equipment
upgrades to provide warning and protection against evolving
surface-to-air missile threats.
With regard to the JFTL program, the committee continued to
support ongoing research efforts to develop next-generation
rotorcraft capabilities. The committee has expressed concerns
that senior leadership of the military services and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense have yet to establish a set of
validated, reconciled, tested, and achievable technology
requirements for the JFTL program.
H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, fully supported the
budget request for Army Aviation. H.R. 1960 also provided an
additional $135.0 million for the Light Utility Helicopter
(LUH).
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would direct an additional $75.0 million for
the LUH program.
Army Communications Programs
During the 113th Congress, the committee, in particular the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, continued to
place emphasis on the growing importance of battlefield
communications networks in global combat operations. The
committee has aggressively monitored the Army's plans for its
future battlefield network and the supporting research programs
now being resourced by the Army and Marine Corps. In
particular, the committee has focused oversight efforts on the
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) and the follow-
on efforts resulting from the restructured Joint Tactical Radio
System (JTRS) programs. The committee continued to work with
the Army to ensure that the future battlefield capabilities it
creates results in a network-enabled, rather than a network-
dependent, Army.
Organizational Clothing and Individual Equipment
During the 113th Congress, the committee, in particular the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, continued to
devote substantial attention to the oversight of individual
body armor, personnel protection equipment, and other
complementary individual equipment programs through:
legislation; informal and formal discussions with the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Army and Marine Corps senior
leadership; briefings and hearings; coordination with the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit teams; and other
formal and informal activities. Focus areas included but were
not limited to: advances in weight reduction (``lightening the
load'') clothing and equipment; development of specific body
armor systems for military servicewomen; small arms and small
caliber ammunition modernization with particular emphasis on
the Army's individual carbine program and handgun program;
improved combat helmets; improved uniforms; and management of
these associated niche industrial bases. The committee engaged
with the Joint Staff and the military services to coordinate
requirements for these individual equipment programs and has
encouraged joint programs wherever possible.
H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, and the committee report
(H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, addressed the critical
need to reduce the weight of individual warfighter equipment,
improve acquisition practices used for this gear, and requires
the Secretary of Defense to assess options for providing
personnel protection equipment specifically fitted for the
female warfighter.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, supports the legislation contained in H.R.
1960, as passed by the House, supports weight reduction
initiatives, fully funds body armor and personal protection
equipment (PPE) programs, as well as notes the importance of
treating PPE as a weapon system rather than an expendable
commodity. H.R. 3304 would also require more detailed budget
exhibits for PPE programs.
Tactical Aircraft Force Structure
During the 113th Congress, the committee continued to
investigate the adequacy of fighter force structure in both the
Navy and the Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and
Land Forces held a hearing on these issues on April 17, 2013.
The Navy witness testified that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are
reaching their projected service-life and will require
replacement or modifications to further extend their service-
life to eventual deployment of the F-35 aircraft, and noted
that the Department of the Navy's strike fighter shortfall
would reach a manageable level of 18 aircraft in 2023. The Air
Force witness also testified to an Air Force requirement for
1,900 fighter aircraft, which does not now reveal a strike
fighter shortfall in projected force structure through 2030. To
maintain this force structure, Air Force officials informed the
subcommittee that any shortfall mitigation will include
executing funded sustainment and fleet management actions for
older F-16 Block 25, 30 and 32 aircraft, newer block 40 and 50
service life extension, and targeted modernization and
examination of the overall force structure to ensure viable
warfighting capabilities are maintained.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, authorized the budget
request of 21 EA-18G aircraft for the Navy and the requested
procurement to extend the life of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B
fleets, and included an increase of $75.0 million for advance
procurement of additional F/A-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year
2015. H.R. 1960 also authorized the entire Air Force request
for modifications to its A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35
fleets. Additionally, H.R. 1960 authorized the budget request
of $5.5 billion for 29 F-35 aircraft and $1.9 billion for F-35
development.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize 21 EA-18G aircraft for the
Navy and the requested funding to extend the life of the legacy
F/A-18 and AV-8B fleets, and include an increase of $75.0
million for advance procurement of additional F/A-18E/F
aircraft in fiscal year 2015. H.R. 3304 would also authorize
the Air Force request for modifications to its A-10, F-15, F-
16, F-22A, and F-35 fleets. Additionally, H.R. 3304 would
authorize $5.5 billion for 29 F-35 aircraft and $2.7 billion
for F-35 development.
F-35/Joint Strike Fighter
During the 113th Congress, the committee continued
oversight of the F-35 program.
Before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on
April 17, 2013 the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing testified that the new F-
35 acquisition baseline reflects positive restructuring actions
taken by the Department of Defense (DOD) since 2010, including
more time and funding for development and deferred procurement
of more than 400 aircraft to future years. The GAO witness
noted that overall the program progressed on several fronts
during 2012 to further improve the current outlook. As examples
of this progress, the GAO witness reported that the program
achieved seven of 10 key management objectives and made
substantial progress on one other, but two objectives on
aircraft deliveries and a corrective management plan were not
met. Additionally, he testified that the F-35 development test
program substantially met expectations with some revisions to
flight test plans and made considerable progress addressing key
technical risks. Software management practices and some output
measures improved, although deliveries to test continued to lag
behind plans. The GAO witness also noted that manufacturing and
supply processes also improved indicators such as factory
throughput, labor efficiency, and quality measures were
positive, and aircraft deliveries are accelerating. However,
the GAO witness also testified that development of the F-35's
block 3.0 software, which provides full warfighting capability,
is one of the program's highest risk areas.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House on June 14, 2013,
would authorize the budget request of $5.5 billion for
procurement of 29 F-35s, and $1.9 billion for F-35 research,
development, test and evaluation. H.R. 1960 also included a
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish an independent team of subject matter experts to
review the F-35's software development program and assess
whether the software development program will be completed
according to schedule and to provide recommendations for
improving the software development program.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would authorize $7.8 billion for F-35
development and procurement and included the House provision
directing an F-35 software development review.
Aviation Programs
Through its oversight activities, the committee noted that
the B-52 strategic radar replacement program replaces the
current B-52 radar fielded in the 1960s and then upgraded in
the 1970s and 1980s. Although sustainable through the current
service life of the B-52, the legacy radar system mean-time-
between-failure continues to degrade and sustainment costs are
expected to significantly increase after 2017. The SRR program
is a radar replacement program that may take advantage of the
advanced capabilities of modern non-developmental radars,
maximizing commonality with other platforms. However, the SRR
program was terminated in the budget request for fiscal year
2013 due to Air Force budget constraints and the need to fund
other, higher priorities. Although the committee understands
that affordability concerns were the primary driver for the SRR
program termination, it is unclear to the committee how the
Secretary of the Air Force intends to afford the legacy radar
system knowing that sustainment costs are predicted to
significantly increase after 2017. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Air Force to develop and implement an
affordability strategy for maintaining radar capability on the
B-52 aircraft through its predicted service-life of 2040 and to
communicate that strategy to the congressional defense
committees soon after the affordability strategy is developed.
Through its oversight activities, regarding the previously
terminated B-52 CONECT program in the budget request for fiscal
year 2013, the committee supported the Secretary's decision
reinstating the program in the fiscal year 2014 budget request.
However, the committee is concerned with the current plan to
only fund and modernize 28 of 76 total aircraft with CONECT
capability. The committee reminds the Secretary that section
137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181) requires the Secretary to maintain
all B-52 aircraft in a common capability configuration.
Realizing that the committee in the future may have to address
not retaining the nuclear capability for a certain number of B-
52s in order to comply with New START requirements, the
committee intends to provide no flexibility for not maintaining
B-52 aircraft in a common conventional capability
configuration. A dissimilar capability configuration adds
complexity to supply chain management, aircrew certification,
training and employment, and would inherently complicate
combatant commander operational planning and execution by
having to account for dissimilar aircraft capabilities. The
Joint Explanatory Statement associated with H.R. 3304 provides
flexibility for the Air Force to demodify nuclear capability
from B-52 aircraft, but requires the Secretary of the Air Force
to maintain a common conventional capability configuration for
the B-52 fleet of aircraft.
Through its classified oversight activities, the committee
maintains oversight of the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB)
acquisition program.
Through its oversight activities, the committee notes that
the Secretary of the Air Force invested nearly $1.5 billion of
taxpayer dollars for engineering, manufacturing, development,
and testing of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
and has entered Low Rate Initial Production, but has no plans
to continue procurement and installation of C-130 AMP onto
legacy C-130H aircraft. The Secretary had no plans to modernize
or upgrade the C-130H propulsion system in order to increase
reliability, capability, fuel efficiency and on-wing time of
the engine, as well as to decrease the overall cost and
maintenance burden of the current propulsion system. The
Secretary has also not articulated to the committee a coherent
plan for fleet-wide recapitalization of the C-130H fleet or how
the Department of the Air Force plans to maintain medium-sized
intra-theater airlift capacity and capability within both the
Active and Reserve Components. Knowing that the majority of the
C-130H fleet resides within the Reserve Components of the Air
Force and that the C-130H should remain reliable, capable, and
relevant to meeting current and future warfighter needs, the
committee is concerned with the lack of initiative that the
Secretary has taken with regard to the modernization and
upgrade of C-130H aircraft. The committee also notes that
through cost reduction initiatives and efficiencies gained in
the C-130 AMP over the past year, the cost data that the
Secretary used as justification for canceling the C-130 AMP in
the budget request was no longer relevant. In H.R. 1960, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 as
passed by the House, the committee recommended funding
increases for C-130H propulsion system propeller upgrades,
propulsion system engine upgrades, and for continued
procurement C-130 AMP kits and installation onto C-130H
aircraft. The Joint Explanatory Statement for H.R. 3304
supports all of the committee's initiatives for the legacy C-
130H fleet of aircraft.
The committee supports multi-year procurement authority for
the C-130J and E-2D aircraft in both H.R. 1960 and the
associated conference joint explanatory statement, which will
save the Department of Defense over $1.0 billion dollars in
procurement costs.
Through its oversight activities, committee closely
monitors the KC-46A engineering, manufacturing and development
program. The KC-46A program office has complied with the
committee request that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics provide the committee
quarterly reviews of the Air Force's KC-46A program to maintain
sufficient and effective oversight. The committee also
requested that the Comptroller General of the United States
provide the committee with an annual review of the development
program. Through an oversight hearing regarding KC-46, the
committee gained a further understanding of the KC-46 program
and was provided a thorough update of the KC-46 program
completed milestones. The committee will continue oversight of
the KC-46 program through staff level briefings and future
hearings.
Through its oversight activities, the committee recognizes
the challenges associated with the development of a new U.S.
Navy threat target system, Multi-Stage Supersonic Target
(MSST), given the assessed complexity and capabilities of the
actual threat missile. However the committee also remains
concerned that the Navy still does not have a threat
representative target fielded in order to assess
vulnerabilities and susceptibilities of naval air defense
systems, as well as to assess the effectiveness of potential
countermeasures that could be developed to defend against an
MSST threat. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary
to maintain a robust and fully resourced MSST development
strategy and encouraged the Secretary to provide the committee
frequent updates as the MSST program progresses toward its May
2016, IOC milestone.
Through its oversight activities, the committee notes that
in 2009, the U.S. Pacific Fleet validated an Urgent Operational
Needs Statement for an over-the-horizon surface warfare missile
that can be launched from aircraft or surface vessels and
strike well-defended, moving maritime targets without the
reliance on external inputs. The committee supports the
Secretary of the Navy's pursuit for the rapid development and
deployment of a long-range, anti-ship missile that is capable
of penetrating sophisticated enemy air-defense systems from
long range.
Through its oversight activities, the committee notes that
the Secretary of the Navy has not fully leveraged technology
development activities in the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS)
program that would reduce Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aircraft
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system program risk. The
committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy again reduced
the planned scope of technology development activities in
fiscal year 2014 for the UCAS program by deleting the
requirement for the X-47B aircraft to demonstrate unmanned
autonomous aerial refueling from an airborne tanker, thereby
increasing the development risk in the UCLASS program. The
committee disagreed with the Secretary's approach to the UCAS
program and disagreed with increasing the concurrency and
developmental risk being sewn into the acquisition strategy of
the UCLASS program. H.R. 1960 included a provision that would
require the Secretary of the Navy to demonstrate unmanned
autonomous aerial refueling with the X-47B UCAS aircraft, and
another provision that would prohibit the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from
approving a milestone A technology development contract award
for the UCLASS program until 30 days after the Under Secretary
certifies to the congressional defense committees that the
software and system engineering designs for the control system
and connectivity segment and the aircraft carrier segment of
the UCLASS system can achieve, at a low level of integration
risk, successful compatibility and operability with the air
vehicle segment planned for selection at milestone A contract
award. H.R. 3304 did not include the UCAS provision, but did
include a provision for UCLASS that would: limit the
acquisition to no more than six prototype aircraft prior to a
Milestone B award; require the Navy to provide quarterly cost,
schedule and execution reports to the congressional defense
committees; and, require the Comptroller General to provide the
congressional defense committees annual reports on the
acquisition strategy and execution of the UCLASS program.
Shipbuilding Programs
The committee continues its oversight of the Department of
Defense's shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments
are made and the Navy achieves the force structure, with
appropriate capabilities, needed to meet requirements.
Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of
credible combat power, global presence, and humanitarian
assistance are all core Navy missions that the committee
remains focused on during this time of economic constraints.
Through its oversight activities, the committee faces the
challenge of balancing current demands on an aging fleet within
current economic constraints. The Navy's budget request was for
eight new-construction battle-force ships, an increase of one
ship from the fiscal year 2013 Future Years Defense Plan
(FDYP). When combined with the proposed early decommissioning
of seven cruisers and two amphibious ships, the Navy is
projecting a 2020 force of 255 ships. This available force
structure contrasts the Navy required projection in 2013 of 308
ships and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel
requirement of 346 ships. Despite these shortfalls, the
committee seeks to obtain the required capability and provide
stability to the shipbuilding industrial base.
CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford class of aircraft
carriers. Technologies inserted into this ship, have challenged
the Navy to maintain cost controls on the lead ship. To address
these cost issues, H.R. 3304, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, includes a provision
that would amend section 122 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) by: (1) adjusting the cost cap for CVN-78 from $10,500.0
million to $12,887.0 million; (2) adjusting the cost cap for
subsequent ships in the class from $8,100.0 million to
$11,498.0 million; (3) adding a new factor for adjustment,
allowing increases or decreases in the cost of CVN-78 that are
attributable to the shipboard test program, but only when the
changes result for urgent and unforeseen testing problems that
would delay delivery or initial operating capability of the
ship; (4) requiring quarterly updates on the cost of CVN-79;
and (5) directing the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that each
prime contract for CVN-79 includes an incentive fee structure
that will, throughout the entire period of performance of the
contract, provide incentives for each contractor to meet the
portion of the cost of the ship for which the contractor is
responsible.
The subcommittee also continues its oversight of the
Littoral Combat Ship program. H.R. 3304 includes a provision
that would fence funding for LCS-25 and LCS-26 until: (1) the
Navy provides certain reports about the LCS program; and (2)
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes certain
certifications about the LCS program.
Military Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs
Manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) system programs have come to constitute a
significant component of the overall Department of Defense
force structure. The capability provided by these assets is
critical to sustaining deterrence and warfighting capability of
U.S. forces. The committee focused on the budget, cost,
schedule, and performance outcomes of major manned and unmanned
aerial systems programs and examine the ISR enterprise for
balance in collection and analysis capabilities. Also, close
scrutiny of Office of the Secretary of Defense ISR policy
formulation and oversight have been and will continued to be of
interest to the committee. Long-standing concerns of the
committee remain: lack of an adequate long-term ISR
architecture and acquisition strategy; lack of supporting
analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance
collection programs data output with adequate resources to
process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; and
unnecessary proliferation of manned and unmanned vehicles and
sensors. As a result of committee oversight activities, the
committee expects the Joint Staff and Joint Requirements
Oversight Council to take a more active role in coordinating
ISR system acquisition and coordinating employment with the
combatant commanders.
In the first session of the 113th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on
April 23, 2013, on unmanned aerial systems. Witnesses for this
hearing included the Director of Unmanned Warfare &
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense; the United States Air Force Director
of Bases, Ranges, and Airspace; and the Director of Army
Aviation. Among other issues, this hearing reviewed the
Department of Defense budget requests for unmanned aerial
systems for fiscal year 2014 including the requests for the RQ-
4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, extended Global Hawk
Block 30 operations for 2 additional years, until December
2016, and also increased the Air Force budget request by $80.0
million for six additional MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would extend the operation of the Air Force
Global Hawk Block 30 until December 2014, and would maintain
critical high altitude ISR capabilities, including manning for
the Global Hawk Block 30. H.R. 3304 would also increase the MQ-
9 Reaper budget request by $80.0 million.
Directed Energy Programs
Each of the military services and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense within the Department of Defense have
continued to fund numerous directed energy research and
development efforts for the last three decades. While some
limited capabilities have been successfully demonstrated, in
most cases the results achieved have not lived up to
expectations. The committee continued to support promising
efforts within science and technology programs, as they also
support missile defense and other emerging concepts for
countering anti-access and area denial threats. The committee
has closely examined organizing concepts provided by the
military services and the Office of Secretary of Defense to
determine how best to support the transition of these
capabilities from demonstrations to programs of record.
Additionally, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats, and Capabilities conducted detailed oversight of
specific Directed Energy programs and activities within
Defense-wide and Service science and technology programs and
activities.
H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, included several
legislative provisions related to directed energy weapons,
specifically: a plan for protecting tier one task critical
assets of the Department of Defense from electromagnetic pulse
and high powered microwave systems; a requirement to establish
a funding line and fielding plan for Navy laser weapons
systems; and a sense of Congress on the counter-electronic high
power microwave missile project.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee also included several directives related to directed
energy weapons, including a briefing on Army directed energy
testing; a briefing on the Maritime Laser Weapons System; a
briefing on foreign directed energy threats to U.S. military
systems; and a briefing on test and evaluation capabilities for
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high powered microwave (HPM)
systems.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, includes several legislative provisions
related to directed energy weapons, including a sense of
Congress on the counter-electronic high power microwave missile
project, and a directive to the Defense Intelligence Agency for
a report on EMP and HPM threats to military infrastructure.
Nuclear Deterrence and the Nuclear Security Enterprise
In the 113th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of the atomic energy defense activities of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and nuclear policies and programs of
the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure the safety, security,
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Particular emphasis has been placed on DOE and DOD nuclear
modernization plans and associated funding requirements,
proposed changes to nuclear weapons policy and posture, and the
effectiveness of institutional structures that support the
nuclear security enterprise and interagency decision-making
related to nuclear weapons.
In the first session of the 113th Congress, on February 28,
2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing
``Nuclear Security: Actions, Accountability, and Reform''. This
hearing continued the subcommittee's oversight of the DOE and
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) efforts to
address the problems highlighted by the July 2012 security
intrusion at the Y-12 National Security Complex. On March 19,
2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``The U.S. Nuclear
Deterrent: What Are the Requirements for A Strong Deterrent In
an Era of Defense Sequester?'' This hearing featured non-
governmental expert witnesses and discussed future plans for
the U.S. nuclear deterrent in an age of increasingly scarce
resources.
On May 9, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on the
``Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense
Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs''. At this annual budget
request hearing, members inquired about DOE and DOD nuclear
weapons and infrastructure modernization plans, implementation
of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), defense
environmental cleanup, and the proposed resources for these and
other nuclear programs. On October 29, 2013, the subcommittee
held a hearing on ``Nuclear Weapons Modernization Programs:
Military, Technical, and Political Requirements for the B61
Life Extension Program (LEP) and Future Stockpile Strategy''
that focused on a key subset of such programs. The witness
panel, comprised of the key government and national laboratory
leaders with responsibility for the B61 LEP, discussed the
requirements driving the ongoing LEP, the policies and
decisions that led to the LEP, the current status of the LEP,
and the funding required to successfully execute the program.
In addition to hearings, the Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces held a classified briefing on February 5, 2013, on the
status and future of nuclear weapons programs in foreign
nations. The subcommittee also assisted the committee by
supporting a classified briefing on June 27, 2013, on arms
control treaty violations by the Russian Federation and how
such violations may impact the Administration's proposals for
U.S. nuclear weapons policy. On July 18, 2013, the subcommittee
held a classified briefing on the same topic at the
subcommittee-level. Finally, on September 10, 2013, the
subcommittee held a classified briefing on the status of the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile with the directors of the
Nation's three nuclear weapons laboratories.
The committee included several legislative provisions
related to nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security
enterprise in H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House. Among others,
this includes provisions that would provide congressional input
regarding nuclear force structure decisions, strengthen
interagency coordination on nuclear weapons decision-making,
provide momentum and increase congressional oversight to
efforts to reform security practices at DOE and NNSA, require a
long-term plan for cleanup of the Nation's largest defense
nuclear waste site, and continue reforms to create a more
effective and efficient nuclear security enterprise.
Missile Defense
The committee oversees the Department of Defense's efforts
to develop, test, and field layered missile defense
capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed forces,
and its friends and allies against the full range of ballistic
missile threats. Particular emphasis has been placed on U.S.
homeland missile defense capabilities, European Phased Adaptive
Approach implementation and ensuring an adequate hedging
strategy for the protection of the U.S. homeland, developmental
and operational testing, force structure and inventory
requirements, sensor-to-shooter integration, and science and
technology investments in areas such as directed energy. The
committee closely watched the Administration's funding of the
missile defense program, seeking the cost-effective application
of resources, and looking for opportunities to bring greater
stability to the industrial base.
The committee continued to monitor foreign ballistic
missile threats and identified opportunities to strengthen
international missile defense cooperation with allies and
partners such as the State of Israel, Japan, and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization member states. Department of Defense
oversight and management of missile defense activities,
including the roles, responsibilities, and acquisition policies
and procedures of the Missile Defense Agency and military
services was also reviewed. The committee provided oversight of
the Administration's missile defense policy and posture,
including close examination of any Administration efforts that
may limit missile defenses as part of a treaty or agreement,
and implications for United States, regional, and global
security.
In the first session of the 113th Congress, on May 8, 2013,
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing regarding
the ``Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for Missile Defense Programs''.
In addition to the hearing, the Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces also held a classified briefing on February 13, 2013,
regarding the long range missile threat to the United States.
On April 26, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a missile
defense briefing from Admiral Syring, Director, Missile Defense
Agency, including the agency's classified programs.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, would direct important oversight on homeland
and regional missile defense programs, Israeli cooperative
missile defense programs, as well as the Israeli Iron Dome
program. H.R. 3304 would increase funding for the development
of a new kill vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
program as well as provide funding for continued planning
activities related to an additional homeland missile defense
site, and the deployment of an additional homeland missile
defense radar site to defend against threats including from the
Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.
National Security Space
In the 113th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of the Department's national security space programs,
which includes the military services, combat support agencies,
and elements of the Department of Defense that are part of the
Intelligence Community. On March 5, 2013, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces received a briefing from the Commander of the
Air Force Space Command, the Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office, and the National Intelligence Officer
for Science and Technology regarding national security space
programs and foreign threats to U.S. space systems.
On April 25, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on the
Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request
for National Security Space Activities. Members' oversight
questions addressed a range of areas including space policy,
the impact of sequestration on space programs, space launch,
commercial satellite services, space threats, and space
situational awareness. Additionally, on July 31, 2013, the
subcommittee received a briefing on commercial satellite
services. The briefing addressed new acquisition methods to
reduce the cost of acquisition of commercial satellite services
as well as the identification of satellite services being
procured from certain foreign countries.
Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also
participated in several congressional delegations to oversee
the national security space program. The members traveled to a
National Reconnaissance Office ground station, the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, the Army Space and
Missile Defense Command headquarters, Vandenberg Air Force
Base, the Air Force Space and Missiles System Center, and
several industry facilities.
H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House, contained several
national security space-related legislative provisions, funding
recommendations, and reporting requirements to include: a
requirement that the Secretary of the Air Force develop and
implement a plan to ensure the fair evaluation of competing
contractors in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program; a
requirement that the Secretary of Defense notify Congress
regarding each attempt by a foreign actor to disrupt, deny, or
destroy a U.S. national security space capability; direction
that Department officials develop a strategy to enable the
multi-year procurement of commercial satellite services; and a
prohibition on the Department from entering into a contracts
for satellite services with certain foreign entities under a
set of defined circumstances.
EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Investment in Future Capabilities Science and Technology
The Department of Defense faces difficult choices as it
balances the competing needs of capabilities for current
operations and those projected for future conflicts. In order
to address the latter, investments must be made in the
Department's Science and Technology (S&T) programs and aligned
appropriately with continued development and procurement
programs to position the Department to meet those future
challenges. Preparing for the challenges of the future, the
Department must create a portfolio of technological options
that can address the perceived threats identified in the
defense planning process, as well as the emergence of
unanticipated events or strategic competitors. Overcoming the
bureaucratic inertia of existing acquisition road maps should
be more properly balanced with capabilities to institutionalize
adaptability. With the emergence of nontraditional adversaries
pursuing ``complex irregular warfare,'' the Department of
Defense recognized that true transformation required investment
in additional capability areas. The committee continued to
encourage the Department to plan and execute a balanced S&T
program that ensures the U.S. military can retain superiority
for future generations.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats, and Capabilities conducted several hearings
and briefing within this area, including: a briefing on
``Perspectives on the Future National Security Environment:
Technological, Geopolitical and Economic Trends Affecting the
Defense Strategic Guidance'' on February 13, 2013; and a
hearing on ``Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request for Department of Defense (DOD) Science and
Technology Programs'' on April 16, 2013.
The committee included several additional legislative
provisions related to science and technology in H.R. 1960, as
passed by the House, to include: extension of authority to
award prizes for advanced technology achievements; extension of
pilot program on technology protection features; establishment
of a new authority for enhanced technology transfer of software
developed at Department of Defense laboratories; clarification
on eligibility for the defense experimental program to
stimulate competitive research; extension and expansion of
section 219 authority for defense laboratories; establishment
of a pilot program on proof of concept commercialization; and
establishment of a defense science initiative for personnel.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee included several directives related to science and
technology, including a briefing on sustainment of
sociocultural capabilities of the Department of Defense.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 included several legislative provisions
related to science and technology, including: extension of
authority to award prizes for advanced technology achievements;
extension of pilot program on technology protection features;
establishment of a new authority for enhanced technology
transfer of software developed at Department of Defense
laboratories; extension and expansion of Section 219 authority
for defense laboratories; establishment of a pilot program on
proof of concept commercialization; modification to the
biennial strategic plan of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency; and temporary hiring authority for personnel
in the defense laboratories.
Cyber Operations Capabilities
Cyber operations have taken on an increasingly important
role in military operations as well as national security writ
large. Accordingly, the committee continued to closely
scrutinize the Department's cyber operations, organization,
manning and funding to ensure the military has the freedom of
maneuver to conduct the range of missions in the nation's
defense, and when called upon, to support interagency and
international partners. An important oversight role for the
full committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities regarding the conduct of
defensive and offensive cyber operations has been to ensure
proper legal and policy frameworks are in place and are
followed. The committee continued to scrutinize military cyber
operations to ensure they are properly integrated into
combatant commander's operational plans so that adequate
capabilities exist or are in development to employ these
cyberspace operational tools with rigor and discretion to
support a full range of options for national decision makers.
In the course of monitoring the cybersecurity posture of the
military, the committee also continued to examine the effects
of globalization on the assured integrity of microelectronics
and software.
The committee held a related hearing on March 13, 2013 on
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force.'' In addition to
formal hearings, the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities held cyber operations briefings on
March 20, 2013, and December 4, 2013.
The committee included several legislative provisions
related to cyber operations capabilities in H.R. 1960, as
passed by the House, to include: limitation on availability of
funds for defensive cyberspace operations of the Air Force;
establishment of a cryptographic modernization oversight and
advisory board; an assessment of United States Cyber Command by
the Defense Science Board; a mission analysis for cyber
operations of Department of Defense; creation of a small
business cybersecurity solutions office; and establishment of a
small business cyber education program.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the
committee also included several directives related to cyber
operations capabilities, including: an assessment of the cyber
centers of academic excellence; a briefing on coordination of
cyber and electronic warfare capabilities; and a briefing on
actions being considered to encourage adoption of the
cybersecurity framework.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions
related to cyber operations, including: limitation on
availability of funds for defensive cyberspace operations of
the Air Force; establishment of a communications security
oversight and advisory board; a mission analysis for cyber
operations of Department of Defense; a briefing on cyber threat
awareness and outreach; synchronization of cryptographic
systems for major defense acquisition programs; new supervision
authorities for the acquisition of cloud computing
capabilities; an assessment of cyber vulnerabilities of
Department of Defense weapon systems and tactical
communications systems; establishment of joint federated
centers of excellence for trusted defense systems; development
of a policy on controlling the proliferation of cyber weapons;
development of a policy on cyber deterrence; an assessment of
the cyber centers of academic excellence; and new authorities
and oversight for United States Cyber Command.
Information Operations
Engagement with foreign audiences and nuanced understanding
of the information environment is pivotal in countering violent
extremists, interrupting the radicalization process, and
identifying and countering efforts at deception and
misinformation. As such, strategic engagement is a key element
to success on the battlefield and an important tool to prevent
or deter conflict before escalation. The committee continued to
pay particular attention to the Department of Defense's
information operations strategy and how these tools are being
further developed and adapted to support warfighter needs in a
changing security environment. These activities enable military
operations and military support to diplomacy, and the committee
conducted oversight of these critical capabilities as they
transition from a wartime to a peacetime security posture.
The committee held a related hearing on June 28, 2013 on
``Past, Present, and Future Irregular Warfare Challenges:
Private Sector Perspectives.''
The committee included a legislative provision related to
information operations in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House,
that would require a strategy for future information operations
capabilities.
H.R. 3304 included several legislative provisions related
to information operations, including: a strategy for future
information operations capabilities and limitation on funding
for the Trans-Regional Web Initiative.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Full Committee Hearings
During the first session of the 113th Congress, the
committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in
preparation for the fiscal year 2014 budget. These hearings,
combined with the committee's responsibility for assembling the
annual defense authorization bill, are a central element in the
discharge of the committee's oversight responsibilities. In
upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, abuse,
or mismanagement in Federal Government programs, and pursuant
to House rule XI, clauses 2(n), (o), and (p), the committee met
several times to conduct oversight of Department of Defense
activities, as noted elsewhere in this report.
On April 11, 2013, the committee received testimony from
The Honorable Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense; and General
Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
review the budget request for funding and authorities during
fiscal year 2014.
In addition to these hearings, the committee held posture
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of
the military departments. On April 12, 2013, The Honorable
Michael B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force; and General Mark
A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, appeared
before the committee to discuss the United States Air Force's
portion of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. On April 16,
2013, the committee convened a hearing to receive testimony
from The Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; and
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, on the
United States Navy's portion of the fiscal year 2014 budget
request. On April 25, 2013, The Honorable John McHugh,
Secretary of the Army; and General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Army, testified on the budget as it related
to the United States Army.
In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces,
commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before
the committee to discuss the security situation in their
respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began with
testimony from General C. Robert Kehler, Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command; and Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, Commander of
U.S. Pacific Command, on March 5, 2013. This hearing was
followed on March 6, 2013 by General James N. Mattis, Commander
of U.S. Central Command; Admiral William H. McRaven, Commander
of U.S. Special Operations Command; and General William M.
Fraser III, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, who
testified on their commands' budget requests for fiscal year
2014. On March 15, 2013, the committee received testimony from
Admiral James G. Stavridis, Commander of U.S. European Command;
and General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command,
who testified on their combatant commands' fiscal year 2014
budget requests. On March 20, 2013, the committee heard
testimony from General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., Commander of
U.S. Northern Command; and General John F. Kelly, Commander of
U.S. Southern Command, who testified on their combatant
commands' budget requests.
This year the committee also convened a hearing to receive
testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense
priorities for the fiscal year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act, which took place on May 8, 2013.
This year the committee met several times to receive
testimony on the effects of budget sequestration on Department
of Defense. On February 13, 2013, the committee received
testimony from Ashton Carter, Deputy Secretary of Defense;
General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff; General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the U.S.
Army; Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations;
General Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air
Force; General James F. Amos, Commandant of the U.S. Marine
Corps; and General Frank J. Grass, Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, to review the impacts of a Continuing Resolution and
sequestration on defense. On August 1, 2013, the committee
received testimony from Ashton Carter, Deputy Secretary of
Defense; and Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the initial conclusions formed by
the Defense Strategic Choices and Management Review. On
September 18, 2013, the committee received testimony from
General Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air
Force; General James F. Amos, Commandant of the U.S. Marine
Corps; General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the U.S.
Army; and Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations,
on the services' plans for sequestration in fiscal year 2014
and their perspectives on the Strategic Choices and Management
Review.
Additionally, the committee held a series of hearings in
accordance with its legislative and oversight roles which
focused on the United States' ongoing military operations and
related strategies. The committee convened a hearing on
February 27, 2013, to receive testimony from outside experts on
the transition in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
pertaining to drawdown of U.S. operations. Dr. Catherine Dale,
Congressional Research Service; General (retired) Jack Keane,
former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army; Mr. Anthony
Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies; and
Lieutenant General (retired) David Barno, Center for a New
American Security, appeared before the committee to testify on
this important matter. On April 17, 2013, the committee met to
receive testimony from General Joseph Dunford, Commander of the
International Security and Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan, on recent developments in Afghanistan. On July 17,
2013, the committee received testimony from Mr. Elliot Abrams,
Council for Foreign Relations; Ambassador Frederic C. Hof,
Atlantic Council; and Mona Yacoubian, Pathways to Progress, on
the Security Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and
implications for U.S. National Security and policy options. On
September 10, 2013, the committee received testimony from Chuck
Hagel, Secretary of Defense; General Martin Dempsey, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and John Kerry, Secretary of
State, on the proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in
Syria. On September 19, 2013, the committee received testimony
from The Honorable Michele Flournoy, Center for a New American
Security; General (retired) Jack Keane, Former Vice Chief of
Staff of the U.S. Army, Ambassador Ronald E. Neumann, American
Academy of Diplomacy; and Ms. Clare Lockhart, Institute for
State Effectiveness, on the U.S. presence in Afghanistan after
2014.
The committee also met on January 23, 2013, to convene a
hearing on the review of sexual misconduct at Lackland Air
Force Base. The committee received testimony from Dr. David
Lisak, Forensic Consultant; Chief Master Sergeant (retired)
Cindy McNally, Service Women's Action Network; Ms. Jennifer
Norris, Protect Our Defenders; General Edward A. Rice, Jr.,
Commander of Air Education and Training Command; and General
Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force. On
February 14, 2013, the committee received testimony from Mr.
Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; Lieutenant General Terry
Wolff, Director for Strategic Plans & Policy (J5); and Ms.
Janet St. Laurent, Managing Director for Defense Capabilities
and Management Team at U.S. Government Accountability Office,
on the framework for Building Partnership Capacity Programs and
Authorities. On July 10, 2013, the committee held a joint
hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive
testimony on the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
collaboration to assist service members returning to civilian
life. Witnesses were The Honorable Frank Kendall, Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics; The Honorable Jessica L. Wright, Acting Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; The Honorable
Jonathan Woodson, MD, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs and Director, TRICARE Management Activity; Mr. Stephen
W. Warren, Acting Assistant Secretary for Information and
Technology for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr.
Robert A. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health for the Department
of Veterans Affairs; and Mr. Danny Pummill, Deputy
Undersecretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs. On
October 29, 2013, the committee received testimony from Mr. Dov
Zakheim, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Mr.
Pierre Chao, Center for International and Strategic Studies;
Mr. Paul Francis, Managing Director of the Acquisition and
Sourcing Management for the U.S. Government Accountability
Office; and Mr. Moshe Schwartz, Congressional Research Service,
on 25 years of acquisition reform.
In 2013, the committee began a series of hearings on the
U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. On July 24, 2013,
the committee received testimony from Dr. Michael Auslin,
American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Patrick Cronin, Center for a
New American Security; Admiral (ret.) Gary Roughead, Hoover
Institution; and Dr. James Shinn, Princeton University, on the
rebalance to the Asia-Pacific Region and implications for U.S.
National Security. On November 20, 2013, the committee received
testimony from The Honorable William A. Reinsch, Chairman of
the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; The
Honorable Dennis C. Shea, Vice Chairman of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission; Ms. Carolyn
Bartholomew, Commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission; and Dr. Larry M. Wortzel,
Commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, on the 2013 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission.
Budget Oversight
On March 1, 2013, the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget
request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal
year 2014 to the Committee on the Budget. The committee noted
that the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request had not
yet been received as statutorily mandated, discussing that
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, states, ``[O]n or
after the first Monday in January but not later than the first
Monday in February of each year, the President shall submit a
budget of the United States Government for the following fiscal
year.'' Therefore, the committee discussed its views of the
current funding levels for the National Defense Budget Function
(050) as dictated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law
112-25), as well as the possibility that full sequestration
under this legislation will be applied to national defense.
Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the fiscal year 2014
funding level for discretionary spending under budget function
050 is capped at $552.0 billion. While the committee maintained
reservations about the adequacy of the ``BCA Cap,'' the
Administration stated that this level of funding was sufficient
to support the new defense strategy, which was released in
January 2012. The new defense strategy was developed over the
course of 8 months and reflected both the President's guidance,
as well as the $487.0 billion in cuts to the military under the
BCA. The efforts of the Department to implement this change in
strategy and these funding cuts had just begun. The Deputy
Secretary of Defense testified to the committee on February 13,
2013, ``. . . we are just beginning to make that big move
represented by the $487.0 [billion] and the Gates cuts before
that, the huge strategic adjustment from the era of Iraq and
Afghanistan to the era that is going to define our security
future. So we have laid in those plans, but we have to actually
carry them out. They are challenging managerially, they are
challenging budgetarily. They are challenging for everybody at
this table actually to carry out, and we are just embarking on
them''. Based on the needs brought forward by both civilian and
military leaders of the Department, the committee requested the
current BCA levels be maintained as the minimum required to
support our national defense needs.
The committee discussed that over the last three years, the
level of funding requested for defense has seen significant
decline. In fiscal year 2013, defense spending would decrease
by 17 percent under sequestration when compared with the level
projected for fiscal year 2013 in the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP) that was submitted in February 2010. Even prior
to sequestration, defense spending had already been reduced by
9 percent from the plan submitted just two years earlier.
The committee noted that as of the date of this memo, the
President and Congress had failed to reach an agreement to
avert sequestration. The committee stated that it has held more
hearings and briefings on sequestration than any other
committee in Congress. Time and again over the last 18 months,
the committee received testimony that the effects of
sequestration will be devastating--not only for our armed
forces, their family members, and the defense industrial base,
but also for local communities and the economy. The committee
also noted that although sequestration will be destructive to
our national security and economy, it does not significantly
change the drivers of national spending. The committee
emphasized that it will continue its oversight of the National
Defense Budget Function, preventing a hollow force wherever
possible, despite external fiscal pressures.
The committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in
his views and estimates. Instead, the ranking member was joined
by twelve other members of the committee in submitting
alternative views and estimates that encouraged the elimination
of sequestration to: dispel economic uncertainty, empower
economic recovery, enable the passage of appropriations
legislation in regular order within a clear discretionary
spending budget, and grant the legislative and executive
branches of government the flexibility needed to identify and
to implement savings in a responsible and deliberate manner.
The ranking member's views and estimates letter also encouraged
congressional passage of a comprehensive, long-term, deficit-
reduction plan to solve the country's fiscal challenges and to
promote national security, economic stability, and the
continued growth and prosperity of the United States. The
ranking member asserted that deficit-reduction goals cannot be
effectuated through cuts alone. Rather, the solution must
include increased revenues and changes in mandatory spending.
The ranking member noted, however, that, due to the likely need
for additional cuts to discretionary spending, Congress must
establish a manageable, long-term, discretionary spending plan
that advances national interests. In the absence of an agreed
comprehensive, long-term, deficit-reduction solution or a long-
term, discretionary spending plan that could be incorporated
into such a solution, the ranking member could not advocate
maintaining top-line allocations for the national defense
budget function at, or above, the funding levels established by
the BCA, as amended. In that case, further reductions to
national defense spending might still be necessary.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities
The Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities continued its oversight of several critical areas
of the Department of Defense, including Defense-wide and joint
enabling activities and programs to include: Special Operations
Forces; counter-proliferation and counterterrorism programs and
initiatives; science and technology policy and programs;
information technology programs; homeland defense and
Department of Defense related consequence management programs;
related intelligence support; and other enabling activities and
programs such as cyber operations, strategic communications,
and information operations. In addition, the subcommittee
conducted oversight of intelligence policy, coordination of
military and national intelligence programs, and Department of
Defense elements that are part of the intelligence community.
Subcommittee members and staff made numerous trips to
countries impacted by terrorism, to include areas where U.S.
forces are engaged in combat operations, in order to conduct
oversight; to further understand the resources leveraged
against terrorism and other emerging threats, the authorities
applied in these efforts, and the Department of Defense's
interaction with its interagency and international partners.
These congressional and staff delegations were preceded by
operational and intelligence oversight briefings to members and
staff by senior officials from the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the intelligence community and
represented an important part of oversight conducted by the
subcommittee.
The subcommittee considered and reported several
legislative provisions in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House,
and H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014. The legislative provisions covered a range of
issues within the subcommittee's jurisdiction including:
counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation programs and
activities; U.S. Special Operations Forces; science and
technology policy and programs, including the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency; information technology and programs;
homeland defense and consequence management programs; as well
as intelligence policy, national intelligence programs, and DOD
elements part of the intelligence community. Details of the
germane provisions are reported elsewhere in this report in the
following sections: Global War on Terrorism; Addressing
Emerging Threats; Intelligence; Information Technology and
Business Systems; Directed Energy Programs; Investments in
Future Capabilities in Science and Technology; Cyber Operations
Capabilities; and Information Operations. In addition, H.R.
1960, as passed by the House, and H.R. 3304 also included: a
provision that directed additional reporting requirements for
humanitarian mine action to include Counter-Improvised
Explosive Device technology; a provision to extend the
authority to award prizes for advanced technology achievements;
a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to
create a policy that governs defense intelligence priorities; a
provision that provides new authorities to strengthen the
ability of DOD laboratories to support the continued
development and expansion of its workforce and facilities; a
provision to limit funding on the establishment of Regional
Special Operations Forces Coordination Centers; a technical
correction relating to funding for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Special Operations Headquarters; and a provision
to limit funding for United States Special Operations Command
National Capital Region.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Transition Assistance
The committee provided extensive oversight on the
Department of Defense's Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to
ensure implementation of the Veterans' Opportunity to Work
(VOW) Act was proceeding expeditiously. The committee held
several meetings with the DOD and the services to monitor their
implementation plans. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel
met in an open hearing on April 24, 2013 entitled ``Status of
Implementation of the Requirements of the Veterans Opportunity
to Work (VOW) Act and the recommendations of the Presidential
Veteran Employment Initiative Task Force for the DOD Transition
Assistance Program: Goals, Plans, and Success (GPS)'' to
discuss the implementation. The hearing also provided the
opportunity to determine whether additional legislative changes
were needed to further improve the quality of the program
provided to service members and their families. The committee
addressed several aspects of transition, including expanding
opportunities to gain civilian credentials in H.R. 1960, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as
passed by the House, as well as in the committee report (H.
Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and in H.R. 3304, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. Finally, the
committee received a briefing on the preliminary Comptroller
General's report on the implementation of the VOW Act, which
indicated the program was progressing according to plan with
some minor adjustments required over the next fiscal year.
Disability Evaluation System and ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
The committee continued to provide oversight and expressed
concern about the backlog of cases in the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System. H.R. 1960, the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2014, as passed by the House, contained
legislation that required the Department of Defense to consider
improvements to the system and to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services in the House and Senate containing
their recommendations.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel continued the
process of closely monitoring the ongoing implementation of the
laws and policies surrounding the 2011 repeal of the law
limiting the military service of gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals known as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' through briefings
from the Department of Defense on the rollout of the Department
of Defense policies concerning the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell.''
Religious Freedom
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, contained a provision that would strengthen
and clarify the extent of the protections for the sincerely
held conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs of
service member and a members individual expression of those
beliefs. The provision amended section 533 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239). The provision would expand the accommodation and
prohibition against adverse personnel action based on a members
individual expression of those beliefs. Furthermore, it would
enforce the standard that would trigger disciplinary action
from expressions of those beliefs that could have an impact on
military readiness, unit cohesion or good order and discipline.
Subcommittee on Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of
military readiness, training, logistics, and maintenance
issues; military construction, installations, and family
housing issues; energy policy and programs of the Department of
Defense; and civilian personnel and service contracting issues.
On February 28, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Assuring the Viability of the Sustainment
Industrial Base,'' in order to understand the immediate impacts
of a continuing resolution and sequestration on workload trends
for depots and arsenals, forward-deployed logistics, new weapon
system maintenance, and the Army's new Organic Industrial Base
Strategy. On March 14, 2013, the Subcommittee on Readiness held
a hearing entitled ``Is Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
appropriate at this time?'' The purpose of the hearing was to
determine whether or not the Department of Defense completed an
overseas basing assessment and to understand the rationale
behind a possible future BRAC round.
The committee met on April 14, 2013, to receive testimony
on the Readiness of the U.S. Army. The committee then met in a
follow-on session to receive testimony on the Readiness of the
U.S. Air Force on April 24, 2013. On April 26, the subcommittee
also met to receive testimony on the Readiness of the U.S. Navy
and U.S. Marine Corps in the context of the President's Fiscal
Year 2014 budget request. These three hearings examined the
impacts of sequestration, including Department of Defense
civilian employee furloughs on the overall readiness of the
services. On August 1, 2013, the Subcommittee on Readiness held
a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces on ``Ensuring Navy Surface Force
Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources,''
specifically considering how operational demands and
sequestration impact the Navy's ability to conduct needed
maintenance for surface ships to achieve their expected service
life in support of achieving the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding
plan. On October 2, 2013, the subcommittee received testimony
on ``Resetting the Force for the Future: Risks of
Sequestration,'' with regards to the materiel reset and
reconstitution efforts of the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps
in light of the drawdown of U.S. Armed Forces in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. The committee met on October 10, 2013,
to receive testimony on ``The interpretation of H.R. 3210: Pay
Our Military Act,'' which provided that members of the Armed
Forces, the Reserve Components (full-time National Guard), and
civilian employees and contractors supporting the Armed Forces
receive pay and allowances in spite of the United States
Government shutdown of 2013.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2014.
In addition, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings
on the following topics: February 26, 2013, The Future of
Seapower; April 24, 2013, Oversight of U.S. Naval and U.S. Air
Force Acquisition Programs in the Fiscal Year 2014 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request; July 25, 2013,
Acquisition and Development Challenges Associated with the
Littoral Combat Ship; September 12, 2013, Undersea Warfare
Capabilities and Challenges; October 10, 2013, Department of
Defense Development and Integration of Air/Sea Battle Strategy,
Governance and Policy into the Services' Annual Program,
Planning, Budgeting and Execution Process; October 23, 2013, An
Independent assessment of the Navy's 30-year Shipbuilding Plan;
December 11, 2013, U.S. Asia-Pacific Strategic Considerations
Related to PLA Naval Forces Modernization. The subcommittee on
Seapower and Projection Forces also held a joint hearing with
the Subcommittee on Readiness on August 1st, 2013, Ensuring
Navy Surface Force Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance
Resources.
In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted
numerous briefings on the following topics: February 14, 2013,
Underpinning of the 30-year Shipbuilding Plan; April 10, 2013,
Seapower and Projection Forces Strategy, Tactics and Challenges
Associated with Conducting Full-Spectrum Maritime and Aerospace
Operations in an Anti-Access/Area Denial Threat Environment;
April 17, 2013, Requirements, Cost, Schedule, Acquisition
Strategy and Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request regarding the new
Long-Range Strike Bomber; October 2, 2013, Undersea
Conventional Strike; October 29, 2013, Unmanned Carrier-based
Aircraft Development Activities of the U.S. Navy.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held three hearings
regarding the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request. On
April 25, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on the Fiscal
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for
National Security Space Activities. On May 8, 2013, the
subcommittee held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense
Programs. On May 9, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense
Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs.
In addition to budget request hearings, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces held additional oversight hearings. On
February 28, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on Nuclear
Security: Actions, Accountability, and Reform. On March 19,
2013, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``The U.S. Nuclear
Deterrent: What Are the Requirements for A Strong Deterrent In
an Era of Defense Sequester?'' On October 29, 2013, the
subcommittee held a hearing on Nuclear Weapons Modernization
Programs: Military, Technical, and Political Requirements for
the B61 Life Extension Program and Future Stockpile Strategy.
Regarding subcommittee briefings, the subcommittee held
numerous briefings. On February 5, 2013, the subcommittee met
to receive a classified briefing regarding foreign nuclear
weapons programs. On February 13, 2013, the subcommittee met to
receive a classified briefing on the long range missile threat
to the United States. On March 5, 2013, the subcommittee met to
receive a classified briefing regarding National Security
Space. On April 26, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a
missile defense briefing from Admiral Syring, Director, Missile
Defense Agency. On July 18, 2013, the subcommittee met to
receive a classified briefing on President Obama's Nuclear
Weapons Employment Guidance and Russian Arms Control
Violations. On July 31, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on Commercial Satellite Services. On Sept
10, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing
on the annual assessments of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile. On Sept 18, 2013, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on military requirements for conventional
prompt global strike capability.
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided
oversight of all Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition
programs providing tactical aircraft and missile; armor and
ground vehicle; munitions; and associated support equipment,
including National Guard and Reserve equipment programs. The
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also provided
oversight on policy, such as threats and force structure
requirements, as appropriate within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction. This would include current or future acquisition
programs that relate to gaps in acquisition strategies; or gaps
in current or future capabilities that relate to acquisition
programs; or the allocation of acquisition resources. This
would also include Service specific acquisition policies as
long as there is a nexus to the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also raised
concerns over the impact of sequestration on acquisition
programs, in particular the industrial base.
The subcommittee conducted six oversight hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2014 budget request,
including the following: February 28, 2013: Impacts of a
Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Acquisition,
Programming, and the Industrial Base; March 19, 2013:
Equipping, Modernizing, and Sustaining the National Guard, Army
Reserve, and Air Force Reserve as an Operational Force in a
Time of Budget Uncertainty; April 11, 2013: Equipping the
Individual Soldier and Marine: Current and Future Year
Acquisition and Modernization Strategies and the Fiscal Year
2014 Budget Request; April 17, 2013: Fiscal Year 2014 Navy,
Marine Corps, and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs; April 23,
2013: Post Iraq and Afghanistan: Current and Future Roles for
Unmanned Aerial Systems and the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget
request; and April 26, 2013: Fiscal Year 2014 Army
Modernization Programs.
In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities
regarding the budget request, the subcommittee conducted
oversight hearings on the following topics: October 23, 2013:
Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on
Acquisition and Modernization, and December 17, 2013: The State
of Army Aviation and the Effects of Sequester on Aviation Force
Structure and Modernization.
In addition to hearings, the subcommittee held various
briefings and events to conduct oversight including four
classified briefings: July 23, 2013: Emerging Threats to Air
Superiority and Contribution of 5th Generation Capability;
August 1, 2013: Global IED Threat Assessment with Emphasis on
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; September 18, 2013:
Current and Future Threats to Ground Forces and the Critical
Need to Sustain Modernization Efforts; and October 9, 2013:
Program Updates on Army and Marine Corps Body Armor, Combat
Helmets, and Small Arms Programs. The subcommittee also held
one unclassified briefing on February 14, 2013: Joint Strike
Fighter 101. The subcommittee also met informally to gather
information on the following topics: February 13, 2013:
Adversary Fifth Generation Threats and the Value of Stealth;
and on March 12, 2013: Acquisition 101 by the Government
Accountability Office.
The subcommittee also held a field hearing on April 23,
2013: Post Iraq and Afghanistan: Current and Future Roles for
Unmanned Aerial Systems and the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request
in Dayton, Ohio; and in December held an open Panel Discussion
at Fort Rucker, Alabama on ``The State of Army Aviation and the
Effects of Sequester on Aviation Force Structure and
Modernization.''
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
23, 2013, that was included in H.R. 1960, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House.
The legislation covered a range of issues, including
authorization of appropriations for procurement programs and
research, development, test and evaluation programs for the
Department of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Reserve
Components.
Of note, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
recommended in H.R. 1960, as passed by the House, an additional
$400.0 million for critically needed National Guard and Reserve
Component equipment. H.R. 3304, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, would support the
legislation included in H.R. 1960, and also would direct an
additional $400.0 million to adequately resource under-funded
critical dual-use equipment requirements for the National Guard
and Reserve Component.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was
reestablished by the 113th Congress to conduct studies and
investigations as directed by the chairman and ranking member
of the Committee on Armed Services after coordination with the
chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations. The subcommittee undertakes comprehensive,
in-depth oversight activities of major issues and makes
recommendations to the committee for consideration and
potential legislative action.
Levels of military, contractor and civilian staffing at the Office of
the Secretary of Defense
In March 2013, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and
Ranking Minority Member Adam Smith directed the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations to conduct a study of how
military, civilian and contractor personnel are utilized in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) as part of its
continued oversight of the organization and management of the
Department of Defense. Specifically, the subcommittee was
tasked to identify: the extent to which military personnel hold
positions in OSD that alternatively could be filled by civilian
or contractor personnel; the historical reasons and current
justifications for assigning military personnel to such
positions; the feasibility and advisability of eliminating some
of those positions held by military personnel or filling them
with military of contractor personnel; potential
recommendations for legislative changes that could be
incorporated into the fiscal year 2015 national defense
authorization bill; and the extent to which the manpower
requirements are comparable to other staffs in the Department
of Defense so that findings and recommendations could be more
broadly applied.
In conducting this study, staff received briefings from the
Department of Defense and reviewed hundreds of pages of studies
on OSD's previous efforts to identify or reduce its staffing
levels. In addition, subcommittee Members convened a briefing
and issued a report on its findings.
The subcommittee's staff report concluded that despite
consistent and recurring attention by OSD, historical efforts
to cut the number of personnel have not resulted in overall
reductions in the numbers of civilians or contractors assigned
to the office. In addition, OSD faces challenges implementing
the current round of reductions as directed by the Secretary of
Defense. Until the Department can provide an accurate
accounting of the number of civilian, military and contracted
personnel supporting it and their associated costs, it is not
clear how the Department will be able to execute the necessary
task of reducing and rightsizing its staff.
Afghanistan Oversight
The subcommittee convened two hearings and one briefing in
connection with its continued oversight efforts of U.S.
progress in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
To focus attention on the risks Afghan women face as U.S.
troops withdraw, the subcommittee held two hearings on the
challenges for securing the gains Afghan women have made in
education, security, rights and opportunities during the last
decade. On April 25, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing
entitled ``Transitioning to Afghan Security Lead: Protecting
Afghan Women?'' Witnesses were: Mr. David Sedney, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghan, Pakistan, and
Central Asia; Major General Michael Shields, USA, Director of
the Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, Joint Chiefs of
Staff; Ms. Stephanie Sanok, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow,
International Security Program, Center for Strategic and
International Studies; and Ms. Clare Lockhart, Co-Founder and
Director, Institute for State Effectiveness. On October 29,
2013, the subcommittee held a second hearing entitled ``Report
from SIGAR: Challenges to Securing Afghan Women's Gains in a
Post-2014 Environment.'' Witnesses were: Mr. John Sopko,
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Dr.
Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs,
Congressional Research Services; and Ms. Michelle Barsa, Senior
Manager for Policy, Inclusive Security Action.
The subcommittee continued its oversight into Afghanistan
by focusing on reconstruction to ensure that appropriate
accountability measures are taken. On July 31, 2013, the
subcommittee received a briefing on recent audits of U.S.-
funded reconstruction projects from Mr. John Sopko, Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Mr. Gene
Aloise, Deputy Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction; Ms. Elizabeth Field, Assistant Inspector
General for Audits and Inspections; Ms. Sharon Woods, Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations; and Ms. Monica
J. Brym, Director of Special Projects.
Quadrennial Defense Review
On February 26, 2013, the subcommittee held a hearing to
receive information about the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
planning process underway at the Department of Defense. The
committee received recommendations from outside experts on the
issues that should be considered and the scope of the
Department's current review. Hearing witnesses were: Mr. Shawn
Brimley, Vice President and Director of Studies, Center for a
New American Security; Mr. Jim Thomas, Vice President and
Director of Studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments; and Dr. Colin Dueck, Associate Professor,
Department of Public and International Affairs, George Mason
University.
PUBLICATIONS
HOUSE REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Number Date Filed Bill Number Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
113-102.......... June 7, 2013......... H.R. 1960.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2014
113-102 Part 2... June 11, 2013........ H.R. 1960.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE PRINTS
Committee Print No. 1--Rules of the Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives of the United States, 113th
Congress 2013-2014, adopted January 15, 2013.
PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS
H.A.S.C. 113-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee
Organization. Jan. 15, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-2--Full Committee hearing on A Review of
Sexual Misconduct by Basic Training Instructors at Lackland Air
Force Base. Jan. 23, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-3--Full Committee hearing on The Impacts of a
Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Defense. Feb. 13,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-4--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Perspectives on the Future
National Security Environment: Technological, Geopolitical, and
Economic Trends Affecting the Defense Strategic Guidance. Feb.
13, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-5--Full Committee hearing on Framework for
Building Partnership Capacity Programs and Authorities to Meet
21st Century Challenges. Feb. 14, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-6--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on The Quadrennial Defense Review:
Process, Policy, and Perspectives. Feb. 26, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-7--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on The Future of Seapower. Feb. 26, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-8--Full Committee hearing on Transition in
Afghanistan: Views of Outside Experts. Feb. 27, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-9--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on The Impact of the Current Budget-Constrained Environment on
Military End Strength. Feb. 27, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-10--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on The Role of Intelligence in
the Department of Defense. Feb. 27, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-11--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Assuring Viability of the Sustainment Industrial Base. Feb. 28,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-12--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and
Sequestration on Acquisition, Programming, and the Industrial
Base. Feb. 28, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-13--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Nuclear Security: Actions, Accountability and Reform. Feb.
28, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-14--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S.
Strategic Command and U.S. Pacific Command. Mar. 5, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-15--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. Central
Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S.
Transportation Command. Mar. 6, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-16--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Impact of the Continuing Resolution, Sequestration, and
Declining Operations and Maintenance Budgets on Military
Personnel and Family Related Programs. Mar. 13, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-17--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Information Technology and
Cyber Operations: Modernization and Policy Issues to Support
the Future Force. Mar. 13, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-18--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Is
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Appropriate at this Time?
Mar. 14, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-19--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S.
European Command and U.S. Africa Command. Mar. 15, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-20--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Equipping, Modernizing, and Sustaining the
National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air Force Reserve as an
Operational Force in a Time of Budget Uncertainty. Mar. 19,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-21--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on The U.S. Nuclear Deterrent: What are the Requirements for a
Strong Deterrent in an Era of Defense Sequester? Mar. 19, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-22--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S.
Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command. Mar. 20, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-23--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Update on Military Suicide Prevention Programs. Mar. 21,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-24--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Mental Health Research. Apr. 10, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-25--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of Defense. Apr. 11, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-26--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Equipping the Individual Soldier and Marine: Current and Future
Year Acquisition and Modernization Strategies and the Fiscal
Year 2014 Budget Request. Apr. 11, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-27--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Air Force. Apr. 12, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-28--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Navy. Apr. 16, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-29--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The
Readiness Posture of the U.S. Army. Apr. 16, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-30--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Department
of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology Programs. Apr. 16,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-31--Full Committee hearing on Recent
Developments in Afghanistan. Apr. 17, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-32--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2014 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat
Aviation Programs. Apr. 17, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-33--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for U.S. Special
Operations Command and U.S. Special Operations Forces. Apr. 17,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-34--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Post
Iraq and Afghanistan: Current and Future Roles for UAS and the
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request. Apr. 23, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-35--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Oversight of U.S. Naval and U.S. Air Force Acquisition Programs
in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request. Apr. 24, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-36--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The
Readiness Posture of the U.S. Air Force. Apr. 24, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-37--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Status of Implementation of the Requirements of the VOW Act
and the Recommendations of the Presidential Veterans Employment
Initiative Task Force for the DOD Transition Assistance
Program--Goals, Plans, and Success (GPS). Apr. 24, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-38--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Army. Apr. 25, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-39--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Transitioning to Afghan Security
Lead: Protecting Afghan Women? Apr. 25, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-40--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
National Security Space Activities. Apr. 25, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-41--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The
Readiness Posture of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps.
Apr. 26, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-42--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2014 Army Modernization Programs. Apr. 26, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-45--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2014
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities and Nuclear
Forces Programs. May 9, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-46--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Past, Present, and Future
Irregular Warfare Challenges: Private Sector Perspectives. June
28, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-48--Full Committee hearing on The Security
Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic--Implications for U.S.
National Security and U.S. Policy Options. July 17, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-50--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Women in Service Reviews. July 24, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-52--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Department of Defense's Challenges in Accounting for Missing
Persons from Past Conflicts. Aug. 1, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-54--Subcommittees on Readiness and Seapower
and Projection Forces joint hearing on Ensuring Navy Surface
Force Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources. Aug. 1,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-63--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Biodefense: Worldwide
Threats and Countermeasure Efforts for the Department of
Defense. Oct. 11, 2013.
PRESS RELEASES
First Session
January 3, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on President
Obama Signing the FY2013 NDAA into law
January 7, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Sen. Hagel
Nomination
January 16, 2013--Chairman McKeon Responds to Service
Chiefs' Letter to Congress
January 22, 2013--McKeon Announces Roby As Chair of O&I
Subcommittee
January 29, 2013--McKeon Announces National Defense Panel
Selections for Quadrennial Defense Review
January 29, 2013--McKeon, Smith Announce Subcommittee
Membership for 113th Congress
January 30, 2013--McKeon Awaits Answers from Hagel During
Nomination Hearing
January 31, 2013--McKeon Opposes Hagel As Secretary of
Defense
February 5, 2013--McKeon and Inhofe on President's Expected
Proposal to Replace Sequester
February 6, 2013--McKeon and HASC Republicans To Propose
``Down Payment'' to Protect National Security
February 8, 2013--McKeon Responds To White House Fact Sheet
On Sequester
February 12, 2013--McKeon Statement on White House Plan to
Withdraw Forces from Afghanistan
February 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on President
Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address
February 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on North
Korean Detonation
February 13, 2013--Chairman McKeon: President's Plan for
More Defense Cuts at Odds with Testimony
February 20, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Civilian
Furloughs
February 28, 2013--McKeon and Subcommittee Chairs Will Host
Morning Press Conference on March 1st
March 6, 2013--Remaining Hearings POSTPONED
March 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on House
Republican Budget
March 15, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Deployment of
New Missile Defense Interceptors
April 3, 2013--HASC Leadership Appoints Members to National
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
April 3, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Secretary
Hagel's Speech at National Defense University
April 8, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on the Passing of
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
April 10, 2013--Statement by the Chairman on the
President's Budget Submission
April 22, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Disposition of
Suspected Terrorist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
April 25, 2013--McKeon Releases the FY14 NDAA Markup
Schedule
April 25, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Situation in
Syria
April 25, 2013--McKeon Letter to Secretary Hagel on
Benghazi
April 26, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Secretary
Donley
April 30, 2013--Chairman McKeon Responds to President
Obama's Guantanamo Claim
May 7, 2013--Chairman McKeon Announces Nomination to
Military Sexual Assault Review Panel
May 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on DoD Denial of Vital
Benghazi Oversight Information
May 9, 2013--McKeon: HASC Will Act to Combat Sexual Assault
May 14, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Allegations of
Further Sexual Misconduct in the Military
May 15, 2013--McKeon Continues Benghazi Oversight
May 15, 2013--McKeon, Smith Begin FY 2014 Defense
Authorization Process
May 21, 2013--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
Mark Released
May 21, 2013--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Released
May 21, 2013--Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee Mark Released
May 21, 2013--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee
Mark Released
May 22, 2013--Readiness Subcommittee Mark Released
May 22, 2013--Military Personnel Subcommittee Mark Released
May 23, 2013--Background Material on Guantanamo Bay
May 24, 2013--Myth vs Fact: Obama's Strained View Of
National Security
June 3, 2013--Chairman McKeon Releases Full Committee Mark
June 5, 2013--Opening Statement of Chairman McKeon for Full
Committee Markup
June 6, 2013--House Armed Services Committee Passes Fiscal
Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act
June 7, 2013--Chairman McKeon writing in Washington Post:
Budget cuts chip away at military readiness
June 13, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Latest
Developments in Syria
June 14, 2013--McKeon Statement On House Passage Of
National Defense Authorization Act For 2014
June 19, 2013--Chairman McKeon on the President's Berlin
Remarks
June 26, 2013--Readout of House Armed Services Committee,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Classified
Briefing on Benghazi
June 27, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Unanimous House
Action to Combat Sexual Assault in the Military
July 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on Pentagon Furloughs
July 9, 2013--McKeon on ``Zero Option''
July 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Sends Letter to President
Regarding ``Zero Option''
July 19, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Second Circuit
Ruling Regarding NDAA
July 30, 2013--McKeon Comments on Manning Verdict
July 31, 2013--McKeon Statement on Strategic Choices and
Management Review
July 31, 2013--Readout of House Armed Services Committee,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Classified
Briefing on Benghazi
August 6, 2013--McKeon Statement on DoD Furlough Update
August 15, 2013--McKeon Statement on New DoD Sexual Assault
Policies
August 21, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Bradley
Manning Sentence
August 23, 2013--McKeon Statement on Hasan Verdict
August 26, 2013--McKeon Statement on Developments in Syria
September 11, 2013--McKeon Statement on 9/11 Anniversary
September 16, 2013--McKeon, Smith Joint Statement on Navy
Yard Shootings
September 17, 2013--McKeon Statement on Defense Department
Inspector General Report on Contractor Access to Naval
Installations
September 30, 2013--McKeon Statement on Military Pay and
Potential Government Shutdown
October 4, 2013--Rep. Wilson Urges Secretary of Defense to
Follow Pay Our Military Act
October 4, 2013--McKeon Announces Changes to Armed Services
Committee Staff
October 5, 2013--Chairman McKeon on the Reinstatement of
Furloughed DOD Civilians
October 6, 2013--McKeon Statement on the Capture of Abu
Anas al-Libi
October 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on Death Gratuity
October 8, 2013--McKeon Statement on the Departure of Paul
M. Lewis
October 9, 2013--HASC Vice Chairman Thornberry: Pentagon
playing political games with death benefits
October 9, 2013--McKeon Statement on Rep. Bill Young's
Retirement Announcement
October 11, 2013--Roby Comments On Benghazi Briefing With
General Dempsey
October 19, 2013--McKeon Comments On The Passing Of
Congressman Bill Young
October 24, 2013--HASC Republicans Stress Need to Maintain
National Defense in Budget Conference
October 28, 2013--McKeon Statement On The Passing Of
Chairman Ike Skelton
October 29, 2013--Forbes, Hanabusa Lead Asia Pacific
Oversight Series
October 29, 2013--McKeon Taps Thornberry to Lead Reform
Effort
November 1, 2013--McKeon Urges President to Adopt
Comprehensive Policy in Iraq
November 6, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Rep. Runyan
November 9, 2013--McKeon Statement On Reported Iran Nuke
Deal
November 13, 2013--HASC Leaders Statement on Asia Pacific
Ambassadors Roundtable
November 21, 2013--HASC Leaders Comment On NDAA Progress
November 22, 2013--McKeon Reacts to Iran Nuclear Deal
December 5, 2013--McKeon Statement on Rep. Martha Roby
December 6, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Pearl Harbor
Anniversary
December 9, 2013--McKeon Releases FY14 NDAA Summary Fact
Sheet
December 10, 2013--McKeon, Smith Release FY14 Defense Bill
December 12, 2013--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of
the 52nd National Defense Authorization Act
December 12, 2013--McKeon Statement on Passage of
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013