[House Report 113-714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 545
113th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 113-714
SECOND ANNUAL REPORT
ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
December 23, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-006 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.,
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia Georgia
DUNCAN HUNTER, California COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana JACKIE SPEIER, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado RON BARBER, Arizona
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia ANDREE CARSON, Indiana
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DEREK KILMER, Washington
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 23, 2014.
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
second 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.................................................. 22
Committee Meetings and Hearings.................................. 24
Legislative Activities........................................... 25
Oversight Activities............................................. 32
Publications..................................................... 120
Union Calendar No. 545
113th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 113-714
======================================================================
SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES FOR THE 113TH CONGRESS
_______
December 23, 2014.--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
Service over intelligence matters was changed.
That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities and programs of the U.S.
Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding
the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of Central
Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative
jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related
activities and programs was vested in the permanent select
committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional
interest may request consideration of any such matters.
Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed
Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process
involving intelligence-related activities.
The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4,
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals.
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence
matters and the intelligence related activities of the
Department of Defense.
On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered
cemeteries.
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8 of the United
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that
Congress shall have power:
To raise and support Armies;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States;
To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all Places
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
HOUSE RULES ON JURISDICTION
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and
Air Force reservations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum
and oil shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of
interoceanic canals.
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including
financial assistance for the construction and operation of
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the
national security.
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in support of the
armed services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force.
(14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the
common defense.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special
oversight functions with respect to international arms control
and disarmament and the education of military dependents in
schools.
INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority
for each committee to investigate matters within its
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated,
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on
Armed Services.
The committee derives its authority to conduct oversight
from, among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to
investigations and studies).
COMMITTEE RULES
The committee held its organizational meeting on January
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 on January 3, 2013), H.
Res. 7 (agreed to on January 3, 2013), H. Res. 17 (agreed to on
January 4, 2013), H. Res. 22 (agreed to on January 14, 2013),
H. Res. 453 (agreed to on January 8, 2014), and H. Res. 537
(agreed to on April 3, 2014), 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,\3\ 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
ANDREE 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
TULSI GABBARD,\4\ Hawaii KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
BRADLEY BYRNE,\2\ Alabama
----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
\2\Mr. Byrne was elected to the committee on January 8, 2014.
\3\Mr. Andrews resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives on
February 18, 2014.
\4\Ms. Gabbard was elected to the committee on April 3, 2014.
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
ANDREE 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
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
PAUL COOK, California
BRADLEY BYRNE,\1\ Alabama
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
RICK LARSEN, Washington
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia
COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
DEREK KILMER, Washington
SCOTT H. PETERS, California
TULSI GABBARD,\2\ Hawaii
----------
\1\Mr. Byrne was assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces on January 17, 2014.
\2\Ms. Gabbard was assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces on April 3, 2014.
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
ANDREE 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
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JOHN FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
MARTHA ROBY,\1\ Alabama
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROB BISHOP, Utah
BRADLEY BYRNE,\2\ Alabama
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
RON BARBER, Arizona
DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
\2\Mr. Byrne was assigned to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces on January 17, 2014.
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
JOSEPH J. HECK,\2\ Nevada,
Chairman
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
ROBERT E. ANDREWS,\3\ New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TULSI GABBARD,\4\ Hawaii JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
----------
\1\Mrs. Roby resigned from the committee on December 11, 2013.
\2\Dr. Heck was appointed Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on January 15, 2014.
\3\Mr. Andrews resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives on
February 18, 2014.
\4\Ms. Gabbard was assigned to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on April 3, 2014.
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:
Bob Simmons, 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 (deceased Jan. 5, 2014)
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 (resigned Oct. 1, 2014)
Douglas C. Roach, Professional
Staff Member (deceased Jan. 11,
2013)
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff
Member (resigned May 1, 2014)
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
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
(resigned Mar. 7, 2014)
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff
Member
Elizabeth Conrad, Professional
Staff Member
Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive
Assistant (resigned June 6, 2014)
Nicholas Rodman, Clerk (resigned
May 8, 2014)
Andrew T. Walter, Professional
Staff Member
Claude Chafin, Communications
Director
Aaron Falk, Clerk
Arthur Milikh, Clerk (resigned
Mar. 20, 2014)
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
Colin Bosse, Clerk (appointed Mar.
4, 2013)
Julie Herbert, Clerk (appointed
Mar. 13, 2013)
David Giachetti, Professional
Staff Member (appointed Sept. 1,
2013)
Kari Bingen, Professional Staff
Member (appointed Sept. 16, 2013)
David Baker, Clerk (appointed Mar.
26, 2014, resigned Oct. 3, 2014)
Abigail P. Gage, Clerk (appointed
Apr. 28, 2014)
Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional
Staff Member (appointed May 5,
2014)
Katie Rember, Clerk (appointed
June 17, 2014)
Joe Whited, Professional Staff
Member (appointed June 18, 2014)
Candace Wagner, Executive
Assistant (appointed July 1, 2014)
Mike Miller, Professional Staff
Member (appointed Sept. 2, 2014)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
A total of 302 meetings and hearings have been held by the
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the
113th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and hearings
follows:
FULL COMMITTEE.................................................... 98
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities................................................ 35
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................ 31
Subcommittee on Readiness..................................... 34
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................ 29
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................. 35
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................. 26
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................. 14
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
Public Laws
Public Law 113-66 (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.
H.R. 1960 was introduced on May 14, 2013, by Chairman
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon. The bill's title, as introduced, was
``To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.'' The committee
reported H.R. 1960 favorably to the House on June 7, 2013. The
House considered H.R. 1960 on June 20, 2013, under a structured
rule and agreed to the measure, as amended, by a recorded vote
of 315-108 (Roll no. 244).
S. 1197 was introduced on June 20, 2013, by Chairman Carl
Levin. The bill's title, as introduced, was ``To authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.'' The Senate Committee on Armed Services
reported S. 1197 out of committee on June 20, 2013. The Senate
began consideration of S. 1197 on November 18, 2013, but did
not complete consideration of S. 1197 and therefore was unable
to initiate a formal conference with 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 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 the Senate and held at the desk. On December 19,
2013, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 3304 by yea-nay vote, 84-15 (Record Vote
Number 284). On December 26, 2013, H.R. 3304 was signed by the
President and became Public Law 113-66.
Public Law 113-66, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, does the following: (1) Authorizes
appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for operation
and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)
Authorizes 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; and (c) the military training
student loads for each of the Active and Reserve Components of
the military departments; (4) Modifies various elements of
compensation for military personnel and impose certain
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
defense establishment; (5) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 for military construction and family housing; (6)
Authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations;
(7) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modifies
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for the Maritime
Administration.
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
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
previous year, as informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence.
Public Law 113-130 (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. On July 9, 2014, H.R. 272
passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent. On
July 25, 2014, H.R. 272 was signed by the President and became
Public Law 113-130.
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 (SC) 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.
H.R. 3979--Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
H.R. 3979 was introduced on January 31, 2014, by
Representative Lou Barletta, and was referred to the Committee
on Ways and Means. The title of the bill, as introduced, was:
``To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that
emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as
employees under the shared responsibility requirements
contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.''
On February 25, 2014, the Committee on Ways and Means reported
the bill, as amended, to the House. On March 11, 2014, H.R.
3979 was passed by the House under suspension of the rules by
the yeas and nays, 410-0 (Roll no. 116). On April 7, 2014, H.R.
3979 passed the Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote, 59-38
(Record Vote Number: 101). On April 8, 2014, 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 2015, the legislative
vehicle used for the agreed upon legislative text between the
House and the Senate was an amendment to the Senate Amendment
to H.R. 3979. This legislation is substantially based on two
bills: (1) HR. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which passed
the House on May 22, 2014, by a vote of 325-98; and (2) S.
2410, the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015, which was approved by the Senate Committee on
Armed Services on the same day by a vote of 25-1.
On December 4, 2014, Mr. McKeon moved that the House concur
with an amendment in the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979.
Pursuant to H. Res. 770, the House proceeded with 1 hour of
debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R.
3979 with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 113-58 modified by the amendments printed in
part A of House Report 113-646 and the amendment specified in
section 5 of H. Res. 770, which contained the agreed upon
legislative text between the House and the Senate. On December
4, 2014, the House agreed to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment by a vote of 300-119 (Roll no. 551). On December 8,
2014, a message on House action was received in Senate and held
at the desk. On December 12, 2014, the Senate agreed to the
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3979 by a vote
of 89-11 (Record Vote Number: 325).
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would:
(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for
procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation
(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for
operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds;
(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2015: (a) the personnel strength
for each Active Duty Component of the military departments; (b)
the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each
Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; and (c) the military
training student loads for each of the Active and Reserve
Components of the military departments; (4) Modify various
elements of compensation for military personnel and impose
certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in
the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2015 for military construction and family housing;
(6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency
Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015
for the Department of Energy national security programs; and
(8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2015 for the
Maritime Administration.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, is a
key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its
primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, section 8 of
the United States Constitution, which grants Congress the power
to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a Navy;
and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land
and naval forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives
provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally,
and over the military application of nuclear energy, to the
House Committee on Armed Services. The bill includes the large
majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from the
oversight activities of Committee on Armed Services in the
current year, as informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence.
Legislation Passed by the House of Representatives
H.R. 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 (IN) 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.
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 2014, please see Public Law
113-66 (H.R. 3304).
H.R. 4435--Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015
On April 9, 2014, H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was introduced by
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (CA) and referred to the
Committee on Armed Services. On May 7, 2014, the Committee on
Armed Services held a markup session to consider H.R. 4435. The
committee, a quorum being present, approved H.R. 4435, as
amended, by a vote of 61-0. The bill passed the House, as
amended, on May 22, 2014, by recorded vote, 325-98 (Roll no.
240). The title of the bill was amended to the ``Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015.'' On June 5, 2014, the bill was received in the
Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders Calendar No. 425. For further
action on the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, please see H.R. 3979.
H. Res. 644--Condemning and disapproving of the failure of the Obama
administration to comply with the lawful statutory requirement to
notify Congress before transferring individuals detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing concern
about the national security risks over the transfer of five Taliban
leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists
On June 25, 2014, Representative Scott E. Rigell introduced
H. Res. 644, ``condemning and disapproving of the Obama
administration's failure to comply with the lawful statutory
requirement to notify Congress before releasing individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
[GTMO], and expressing national security concerns over the
release of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of
negotiating with terrorists.'' H. Res. 644 was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services on June 25, 2014.
On July 29, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services met in
open session to consider H. Res. 644 and report the measure to
the House. During the markup, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.
Res. 644 that would condemn and disapprove of the failure of
the Obama administration to comply with the lawful statutory
requirement to notify Congress before transferring five GTMO
detainees, and expressing concern about the associated national
security risks and repercussions of negotiating with
terrorists. The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by Chairman McKeon was agreed to by record vote, 34-25. The
committee ordered H. Res. 644, as amended, reported to the
House with a favorable recommendation by voice vote, a quorum
being present. On July 31, 2014, H. Res. 644 was placed on the
House Calendar, Calendar No. 133.
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 715, H. Res. 644 was
considered in the House under a closed rule on September 9,
2014. The resolution provided for 1 hour of debate on H. Res.
644 equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. On
September 9, 2014, H. Res. 644 was agreed to by the yeas and
nays, 249-163 (Roll no. 485). The title of H. Res. 644 was
amended to read: ``Condemning and disapproving of the failure
of the Obama administration to comply with the lawful statutory
requirement to notify Congress before transferring individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
and expressing concern about the national security risks over
the transfer of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of
negotiating with terrorists.''
Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services
H. Res. 649--Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the
House of Representatives copies of any emails in the possession of the
Department of Defense or the National Security Agency that were
transmitted to or from the email account(s) of former Internal Revenue
Service Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between
January 2009 and April 2011
On June 25, 2014, Representative Steve Stockman introduced
H. Res. 649, a resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of
Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of
any emails in the possession of the Department of Defense or
the National Security Agency that were transmitted to or from
the email account(s) of former Internal Revenue Service Exempt
Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between January
2009 and April 2011.
Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides for a committee to report on a
qualifying resolution of inquiry, such as H. Res. 649, within
14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the
committee is in order. H. Res. 649 was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services on June 25, 2014.
Under the rules and precedents of the House, a resolution
of inquiry is one of the methods that the House can use to
obtain information from the executive branch. As stated in
volume 7, chapter 24, section 8 of `Deschler's Precedents,' a
resolution of inquiry is a `simple resolution making a direct
request or demand of the President or head of an executive
department to furnish the House of Representatives with
specific information in the possession of the executive
branch.' In addition, the resolution must seek facts rather
than opinions and may not require an investigation.
On July 16, 2014, the Committee on Armed Services held a
markup session to consider H. Res. 649. No amendments were
offered to the resolution. The committee ordered H. Res. 649
reported to the House without recommendation by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On July 22, 2014, H. Res. 649 was placed
on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 125. No further action has
been taken.
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
Pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule X 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 second 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. 3979, the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 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.
3979 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. 3979 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 serve to highlight what the National
Defense Panel Review of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review has
observed: ``the United States faces perhaps the most complex
and volatile security environment since World War II.'' These
encompass the violence and brutality fomented by the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Republic of Iraq and
the Syrian Arab Republic; continued security challenges in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; regional aggression by the
Russian Federation; destabilizing actions by the People's
Republic of China in the South and East China Seas; continued
tensions on the Korean peninsula; continued terrorism threats,
instability, and the spread of global extremism particularly
across the Middle East and North Africa; natural disasters; and
the continued spread of lethal and disruptive technologies.
They also serve to highlight the continued need for 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.
To shape the Nation's defense strategy, to include the
longer-term direction of the Nation's forces, their missions
and capabilities, and needed resources in this complex security
environment, the committee looked to the March 2014 release of
the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
However, as it noted in the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446)
accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee believes
the 2014 QDR ``missed a major opportunity'' to do just that.
The National Defense Panel (NDP), which independently assessed
the QDR and released its report in July 2014, came to a similar
conclusion that the ``2014 QDR is not the long-term planning
document envisioned by Congress.'' Thus, H.R. 3979 includes a
provision that would reform the QDR process. A new Defense
Strategy Review would require tradeoff analyses between
missions, risks, and resources to better inform decisions on
the longer-term direction of America's national security
infrastructure, and the role of the NDP would be reshaped to
provide inputs to the QDR process as well as review the final
product.
The committee exercised its oversight of the QDR process
and the defense strategy contained therein through a series of
Member-level and staff briefings. It also sought views from
outside experts, chiefly the National Defense Panel. These
included a hearing on the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review on
April 3, 2014, a roundtable discussion between Members and NDP
panelists on September 10, 2014, and a hearing on the National
Defense Panel Assessment of the 2014 QDR on December 2, 2014.
The committee also conducted its traditional oversight of U.S.
defense policy and strategy through its annual posture and
budget hearings involving the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretaries and chiefs,
and the combatant commanders, that spanned from February to
April 2014.
While the committee understands that the annual defense
budget must remain consistent with the caps contained in the
Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and
defense sequestration, it also continues to recognize the
severe impacts these cuts have had, and will continue to have,
on the military. These impacts were discussed in nearly every
posture and budget hearing and briefing the committee
conducted, as well as the QDR and NDP hearings. As the NDP
concluded in its report, the BCA, on top of previous cuts to
defense dating back to 2009, ``constitute[s] a serious
strategic misstep'' and must be reversed. It further warned
that these massive cuts will ``lead to a high risk force in the
near future,'' have ``caused significant shortfalls in U.S.
military readiness and both present and future capabilities,''
and have prompted allies and adversaries alike ``to question
our commitment and resolve.'' The committee shares these
concerns and is committed to continuing to provide 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. 3979 would authorize $521.3
billion in spending for national defense, consistent with the
House budget, the President's budget request, and the Senate
budget, and an additional $63.7 billion for Overseas
Contingency Operations. This legislation would help ensure our
troops deployed in Iraq, 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 War in Afghanistan
The committee maintained four areas of focus with respect
to the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including:
(1) The efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al
Qaeda and associated groups such as the Haqqani
Network;
(2) The performance of the Afghan National Security
Forces (ANSF) and the continuing retrograde of
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
equipment;
(3) The progress and signing of the Bilateral
Security Agreement between the United States and the
Government of Afghanistan; and
(4) The post-2014 mission and associated authorities.
The committee conducted numerous oversight activities,
including Member-level and staff briefings and travel to
Afghanistan and the region. Additionally, the committee
convened hearings to complement the oversight of the policy,
strategy, and post-2014 presence in Afghanistan, including a
hearing with the ISAF commander on March 13, 2014, and a
hearing with outside experts on July 29, 2014.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
extend a number of authorities that support congressional
oversight of U.S. defense programs in Afghanistan. H.R. 3979
would re-authorize the Commanders' Emergency Response Program,
the authority for reintegration activities in Afghanistan, and
the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund. These authorities support
the ISAF commander's campaign plan in Afghanistan.
Additionally, H.R. 3979 would include a description of U.S.
policy and approach in Afghanistan, including that a top
national security priority for the United States continues to
be to support the stability and sovereignty of Afghanistan and
to help Afghanistan ensure that its territory is not used by Al
Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, or other violent extremist groups
to launch attacks against the United States or its interests
and that any drawdown of such U.S. military forces and
operations should be considered in relation to security
conditions on the ground in Afghanistan at the time of the
drawdown and the recommendations of senior U.S. military
commanders. Additionally, H.R. 3979 would express support for
the security and rights of Afghan women. Lastly, H.R. 3979
would provide for 4,000 additional Special Immigrant Visas and
would amend section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-8) to allow for translators and interpreters
who worked with U.S. military personnel at ISAF to be eligible
for such visas.
The committee will continue to conduct close oversight of
the ANSF and understands the regional context that can
influence outcomes in Afghanistan. As a result, H.R. 3979
includes a report on the post-2014 mission in Afghanistan as
well as a report on the plan to sustain the ANSF through 2017
and on the bilateral cooperation between the United States and
the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on issues
that relate to the war in Afghanistan. Also, H.R. 3979 would
re-authorize the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), which reimburses
certain countries, including Pakistan, for its direct support
to Operation Enduring Freedom; however, this section also would
require certifications from the Secretary of Defense on 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, interaction with
Government Accountability Office auditors and Department of
Defense officials, 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.
The committee also conducted oversight on the Department of
Defense's many quick reaction capability (QRC) organizations,
such as the Rapid Fielding Directorate and the Army's Rapid
Equipping Force. In addition to this oversight of QRC
organizations, the committee reviewed and examined the
processes used by the Department of Defense to readily address
urgent operational needs requested by the warfighter or
combatant commanders currently involved in executing overseas
contingency operations. The committee's intent was to ensure
the warfighter had the necessary equipment, resources,
authorities, and time required to successfully accomplish the
mission. The committee also reviewed the Department of
Defense's use of current rapid acquisition authority, and
analyzed the justification for a flexible joint urgent
operational needs fund.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
authorize $444.0 million for JIEDDO, as well as reauthorize
existing transfer authorities and reporting requirements, to
include JIEDDO's ability to transfer limited funding to the
Department of State for the purposes described in the above
paragraph. H.R. 3979 would also direct the Secretary of Defense
to develop a plan to consolidate and/or eliminate some of the
more than 30 QRC organizations currently operating in the
Department of Defense.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
classified briefing on March 5, 2014, to receive an update on
current and future counter-IED initiatives, as well as to
receive JIEDDO's perspective on the recent Department of
Defense Report relating to a National Security Agency
contractor.
Asia
The United States has continued its Government-wide policy
to ``rebalance'' to the Asia-Pacific region, and the committee
has continued its oversight of the Department of Defense's
implementation of this policy. In particular, the committee has
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.
Events of the last year continue to highlight the security
challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the continued
unilateral efforts by the People's Republic of China to assert
regional influence, particularly in the South and East China
Seas, and the sustained threat to stability on the Korean
peninsula from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In
response, the United States has sought to strengthen its
relationships with traditional treaty allies while also forging
new relationships, particularly with partners in southeast
Asia. The committee has closely overseen the Department of
Defense's specific efforts to implement several posture and
force structure initiatives in the region, including rotational
deployments of Marines, naval, and air assets; forward pre-
positioning; infrastructure realignments; and training and
exercises.
The committee continued its Asia-Pacific oversight series
that it began in 2013 under the leadership of Rep. J. Randy
Forbes and Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa. In addition to the posture
hearing with the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, the
committee held a classified intelligence-operations brief on
the Asia-Pacific region on January 8, 2014, a hearing on
``Rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific Region: Examining its
Implementation'' with senior defense officials on January 28,
2014, a classified briefing on the security situation on the
Korean peninsula on April 2, 2014, a roundtable discussion
between Members and senior defense officials on East Asia on
July 24, 2014, and a roundtable discussion with commissioners
from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on
their 2014 Annual Report to Congress on November 20, 2014.
The subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also
held several oversight hearings and briefings as part of the
Asia-Pacific oversight series, to include a hearing on China's
maritime disputes on January 14, 2014, a hearing on China's
counterspace program and the implications for U.S. national
security on January 28, 2014, a briefing on ``Air Force and
Naval Aircraft of the People's Republic of China Liberation
Army: Order of Battle and Capabilities'' on February 4, 2014,
and a hearing on ``Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities
to Support the Asia Pacific Rebalance'' on February 27, 2014.
The findings and conclusions from this oversight series
informed H.R. 4495, the Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act, a
bipartisan standalone bill introduced by Rep. J. Randy Forbes
and Rep. Colleen W. Hanabusa in the House of Representatives on
April 28, 2014. Much of this legislation is incorporated into
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
including the requirement for a Department of Defense (DOD)
study on Taiwan's defense capabilities, an independent
assessment on countering anti-access area denial capabilities,
a DOD assessment on opportunities to increase regional missile
defense cooperation, and a sense of Congress on the importance
of the U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Republic of Korea security
relationships. H.R. 3979 also contains provisions related to
the Department of Defense's development of a maritime security
strategy and a requirement for a briefing on U.S.-China
military-to-military engagements.
The committee supplemented its hearings and briefings with
official travel to the region, including a congressional
delegation oversight trip led by Chairman Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon to Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, and Taiwan, and
several staff oversight trips to east and southeast Asia.
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 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''; on March 3, 2013, ``The Posture of the U.S. Central
Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S.
Transportation Command''; on June 28, 2013, ``Past, Present,
and Future Irregular Warfare Challenges''; on October 10, 2013,
``Biodefense, Worldwide Threats and Countermeasures for the
Department of Defense''; on March 13, 2014, ``The Fiscal Year
2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the
U.S. Special Operations Command and the Posture of the U.S.
Special Operations Forces''; and on April 8, 2014, ``Fiscal
Year 2015 Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reductions
Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program: Combating
Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing Global Environment.''
Similarly, the committee held several related briefings
including: a classified briefing on March 20, 2013,
``Counterterrorism Operations Update'' which covered worldwide
and current Department of Defense counterterrorism operations
and authorities; on April 24, 2013, a classified briefing on
``Weapons of Mass Destruction and Counterproliferation
Programs''; on July 11, 2013, a classified briefing on
``Exploitation of Materials Recovered during the Osama bin
Laden Raid''; on July 31, 2013, a classified briefing on
``Counterterrorism Policy and Operations Update''; on September
12, 2013, a classified briefing on ``Counterterrorism
Operations Update''; on October 16, 2013, a classified briefing
on ``Counterterrorism Operations Update''; on October 23, 2013,
a briefing on the state of Al Qaeda; on January 15, 2014, a
classified briefing on ``Counterterrorism Operations and
Intelligence Update''; and on July 9, 2014, a classified
briefing on ``Update on Counterterrorism Operations and 1208
Program Activity.'' The committee continued additional
classified oversight functions on a continual basis including
secure communications briefings and updates with senior
Department of Defense officials on current activities most
notably in cyber and global counterterrorism operations.
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 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. Given the key role of
U.S. Special Operations Forces, the Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities continued to
work with the full committee on authorities and programs that
build foreign partner capacity. Specific contributions of the
subcommittee in this area are reported elsewhere in this
report.
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, as passed by the House,
and H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014. These include: a provision to reauthorize 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 in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, Syrian Arab Republic, State of Libya,
and East Africa, which are 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; homeland defense and consequence management
programs; intelligence policy, national intelligence programs,
and Department of Defense elements part of the intelligence
community. Further details on these subcommittee activities are
provided elsewhere in this report.
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House,
included several legislative provisions related to global war
on terrorism, including: a section that would extend the
authority through fiscal year 2015 for the Secretary of Defense
to offer and make rewards to a person providing information or
nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government personnel or Government
personnel of allied forces participating in a combined
operation with U.S. Armed Forces conducted outside the United
States against international terrorism or providing such
information or assistance that is beneficial to force
protection associated with such an operation; a section that
would extend through 2017 the authority for support of special
operations to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the
Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as amended most recently by
section 1203(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81); and a section that would
extend by 1 year, the authority for non-conventional assisted
recovery capabilities for conventional and Special Operations
Forces pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section
1203(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81). Additionally, the subcommittee
assisted the committee with several provisions within H.R. 4435
related to building partnership capacity, security force
assistance, counterinsurgency, intelligence programs, and the
regional conflicts in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
Republic of Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic, State of Libya, and
East Africa, which are addressed elsewhere in this report.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
contains many of the same provisions as the House-passed
version of the bill, including: a section that would extend the
authority through fiscal year 2015 for the Secretary of Defense
to offer and make rewards to a person providing information or
nonlethal assistance to U.S. Government personnel or Government
personnel of allied forces participating in a combined
operation with U.S. Armed Forces conducted outside the United
States against international terrorism or providing such
information or assistance that is beneficial to force
protection associated with such an operation; a section that
would extend through 2017 and raise to $75 million the
authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism
pursuant to section 1208 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as
amended most recently by section 1203(c) of Public Law 112-81;
a section that would extend by 1 year the authority for non-
conventional assisted recovery capabilities for conventional
and Special Operations Forces pursuant to subsection (h) of
section 943 of Public Law 110-417, as amended most recently by
section 1203(c) of Public Law 112-81; a provision that would
provide additional rapid acquisition authorities to U.S.
Special Operations Command; and a provision that would require
the Secretary of Defense provide a plan for the transition of
funding of U.S. Special Operations Command from supplemental
funding for overseas contingency operations to recurring
funding for future years defense programs. Additionally, the
subcommittee assisted the committee with several provisions
within H.R. 3979 related to building partnership capacity,
security force assistance, counterinsurgency, intelligence
programs, and the regional conflicts in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, Republic of Iraq, Syrian Arab Republic, State of
Libya, and East Africa, which are addressed elsewhere in this
report.
Central and South America
The committee continued to oversee the programs and
policies of the Department of Defense related to Central and
South America. The committee maintained strong oversight of the
security and stability of the United States' neighbors in the
Western Hemisphere, including the Republic of Colombia, the
United States of Mexico, the Republic of Honduras, El Salvador,
the Republic of Guatemala, and the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela. In addition, the committee exerted oversight over
the use of Department of Defense facilities in housing many
unaccompanied alien children that were intercepted crossing the
southern border of the United States in fiscal year 2014.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 contain
several provisions that would reauthorize Department of Defense
counternarcotics authorities for Colombia and provide
additional resources for addressing counternarcotics and
transnational organized crime in the region.
Europe
While the stability and security of Europe remain core U.S.
national interests, recent aggression by the Russian Federation
towards Ukraine and its neighbors has destabilized European
security. Even though the Cold War ended in 1991 with the
formal dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia's illegal
annexation of Crimea and its continued arming and support of
separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine has forced the United
States and Europe to re-evaluate regional security and
stability, as well as cooperation with Russia. In recent years,
Russia has focused on reforming and modernizing its forces,
with specific emphasis on the modernization of its conventional
forces and improving the recruitment, training, and retention
of its troops. The committee paid particular attention to the
ongoing crisis in Ukraine and U.S.-Russia discussions on
missile defense, conducting several committee briefings, staff-
level briefings, and Member engagements with senior Department
of Defense and Department of State officials. The committee
also followed U.S.-Russia nonproliferation activities and held
several staff-level briefings on the current and future status
of U.S.-Russian cooperation on nuclear security.
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 training teams in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. European allies will continue to be a
part of the Operation Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.
However, the continuing constrained fiscal environment has
created pressures on the region's militaries, defense budgets,
and investments in future capabilities. North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) allies are concerned about the growing
instability to their east and south, including Russia's illegal
annexation of Crimea and continued support of pro-Russian
separatists and the spread of violence and extremism in North
Africa and the Middle East. At the Wales Summit in September
2014, NATO allies reaffirmed their commitment to ``continue to
invest in modern and deployable armed forces that can operate
effectively together and at a high level of readiness to
fulfill NATO tasks'' and committed to work towards their
nation's defense budget achieving the NATO guideline of the 2
percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The committee followed
the NATO response to Russian aggression, including the
development of the NATO Readiness Action Plan.
The U.S. military force presence in Europe has declined
dramatically since the end of the Cold War. There are currently
only two Army Brigade Combat Teams based permanently in Europe.
There remain 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 Europe, such as to reassure NATO allies, or in neighboring
regions, such as the Middle East and Africa to respond to
crises. The committee continued to examine overseas basing,
including in Europe, to inform its views on a cost effective
force posture to meet U.S. national security needs.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
includes several provisions that address the new security
situation in Europe and the U.S. strategy for reassuring NATO
allies and deterring further Russian aggression. H.R. 3979
would authorize $1.0 billion for 2 years for the European
Reassurance Initiative, including $75.0 million for programs,
activities, and support to the Government of Ukraine, and
$174.4 million for military construction to improve key Eastern
Europe infrastructure and exercise-support facilities. H.R.
3979 would also require the Department of Defense to conduct a
review of existing U.S. and NATO force posture, and provide to
Congress a strategy and plan to enhance European security. H.R.
3979 also includes a limitation on military cooperation between
the United States and Russia, and an annual report through 2018
on military and security developments involving Russia.
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 of Defense
activities central to addressing these emerging and unforeseen
threats, including counterinsurgency, counterterrorism,
security force assistance, and building partnership capacity
(BPC), all of which continue to receive attention in the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review.
While there are roughly a dozen authorities that fall into
the BPC category, the committee continued to devote particular
attention to the global train and equip ``1206'' authority and
the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF). 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.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
includes several provisions that would reauthorize or expand
existing authorities and require reports dealing with the
Department of Defense's BPC authorities. H.R. 3979 would codify
the existing ``1206'' global train and equip authority in title
10, U.S. Code, but limit the fiscal year 2015 authorizing
funding to $350.0 million. H.R. 3979 would also expand the GSCF
authority, section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), to include small-
scale military construction and the maintenance and sustainment
of equipment provided, and extend the expiration of GSCF to
September 30, 2017. H.R. 3979 would provide the Department of
Defense with a global authority for 5 years to loan personnel
protection and personnel survivability equipment to nations
participating in coalition operations, but does not extend the
existing authority limited to coalition operations in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. H.R. 3979 would also
reauthorize several global counternarcotics authorities
including authorities relating to the Republic of Colombia and
to combating illicit trafficking, including illicit activities
involving transnational organized crime. H.R. 3979 would codify
the recurring limitations on the use of funds for assistance to
units of foreign security forces that have committed gross
violations of human rights, and also includes a provision that
provides authority for the training of foreign security forces
and associated security-related ministries of foreign countries
to promote human rights and rule of law. Finally, H.R. 3979
would require the Department of Defense to provide the
congressional defense committees with a biennial report through
2020 on the Department's programs to provide training,
equipment, or other assistance or reimbursement to foreign
security forces.
Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters
During the 113th Congress, the committee 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 several 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.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
includes a 1-year prohibition on the transfer of GTMO detainees
to the United States and a 1-year prohibition on the
construction or modification of facilities in the United States
to house GTMO detainees.
Intelligence
The committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted extensive oversight
of defense intelligence activities. In the first session of the
113th Congress, the committee and subcommittee conducted one
hearing and several Member briefings on defense intelligence
aspects of emerging national security issues as well as
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 and information-
sharing policies following recent extensive unauthorized
disclosures of classified information.
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee
and Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities continued its oversight of defense intelligence
activities. The committee received numerous Member briefings on
defense intelligence aspects of emerging national security
issues.
On February 5, 2014, the subcommittee received a briefing
on the Interim Report on Department of Defense Information
Compromised by Edward Snowden. The briefing was provided by
officials from the Joint Staff and the Defense Intelligence
Agency. On April 4, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on
the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for Intelligence Activities. The witnesses were the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Director of the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the Deputy Director of the
National Security Agency. This hearing was followed up by a
briefing to the subcommittee on April 10, 2014, with the
intelligence chiefs of each of the Armed Services as well as
U.S. Special Operations Command, regarding the budget request
of their intelligence activities for fiscal year 2015.
Additionally, on September 11, 2014, the subcommittee received
a briefing regarding an update on the unauthorized disclosures
by Edward Snowden of the Department of Defense information.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
direct several intelligence-related provisions, including: a
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress
on the extent of unauthorized disclosures and mitigation
efforts; improving personnel security procedure and insider
threat monitoring; 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; a
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to appoint an
executive agent to oversee the Tactical Exploitation of
National Capabilities programs within the military services;
and a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense and
the Comptroller General to conduct a comprehensive review and
assessment of intelligence activities, authorities and programs
of U.S. Special Operations Command and Special Operations
Forces.
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.
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included a provision
that provided pay and allowance parity for the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau and the Senior Enlisted Adviser to the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau among senior members of the
Armed Forces. Additionally H.R. 4435 included a provision that
allowed the per-fiscal year calculation of days of Active Duty
for members of the Reserves to reduce eligibility age for
retirement for non-regular service to cross fiscal years.
The Continent of Africa
The committee conducted regular oversight of the continent
of Africa, including numerous staff level briefings and a
hearing with the Commander of U.S. Africa Command on March 5,
2014.
The Department of Defense undertook Operation United
Assistance to address the Ebola virus in West Africa in 2014.
The Department requested and received approval for the
reprogramming of $750.0 million in Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster and Civic Aid funds to conduct this mission.
Approximately 3,200 U.S. troops have also been deployed to the
region. The Department's mission includes conducting command
and control of the operation, constructing 12 Ebola Treatment
Units, delivering medical training, and providing air and sea
lift of supplies. The committee continued to conduct close
oversight of Operation United Assistance, including convening a
classified Member-level briefing and holding numerous staff
briefings.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
express support for the U.S. mission to assist the Republic of
Uganda People's Defense Force as they combat the Lord's
Resistance Army and attempt to remove or apprehend Joseph Kony.
Additionally, H.R. 3979 would require a report by the Secretary
of State and the Secretary of Defense on the Marine Corps
Security Guard program for diplomatic facilities globally, as
well as a report on the ``New Normal'' and general mission
requirements for U.S. Africa Command. H.R. 3979 also would
provide an authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide
preference for goods or services from the Republic of Djibouti.
The committee recognizes the partnership between the United
States and the Government of Djibouti. Finally, H.R. 3979 would
authorize the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which would
allow for the provision of support and assistance to foreign
security forces, groups, or individuals for counterterrorism or
crisis response missions within the region of U.S. Africa
Command.
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, were 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: 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 subcommittee to testify
on ``The Defense Department's Posture for September 11, 2013:
What are the Lessons of Benghazi?''
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued
this work in 2014.
Furthermore, as a result of the committee's activities,
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, directed 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.
In addition, H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as
passed by the House, would make a series of findings; express
the sense of Congress; require a determination; and require the
submission of a report regarding the individuals responsible
for the attack against United States personnel in Benghazi,
Libya and a counterterrorism strategy related to North Africa.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
includes this provision with an amendment that would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on Department of
Defense efforts to hold the individuals responsible for the
attack against United States personnel in Benghazi, Libya
accountable and require the President to submit a report on
various security related matters in North Africa, West Africa,
and the Sahel.
Iran
The committee continued to conduct oversight of the threat
posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear
weapon to 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. Additionally, the committee held hearings on
overall Middle East Policy on February 11, 2014, and on the
P5+1 negotiations on Iran's nuclear program on June 19, 2014.
Further, the subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a classified
briefing on November 18, 2014, on Iran and implications of
sanctions relief.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
re-authorize the Iran Military Power Report through December
2016 and would authorize reports on the Joint Plan of Action or
a final, comprehensive deal, including verification of whether
Iran is complying with such agreement and an assessment of the
overall state of the nuclear program of Iran for 10 years after
the date of the enactment of the Act.
Operation Inherent Resolve, Iraq, and Syria
U.S. force posture in the Republic of Iraq has changed
significantly during fiscal year 2014. Formerly, U.S. forces
deployed to Iraq were limited to those associated with the
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). Currently, U.S.
forces continue to support OSC-I, but, now, the United States
is engaged in a military campaign against the Islamic State in
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and the Syrian Arab
Republic.
The committee continues to conduct oversight of the
security environment in Iraq and the activities of OSC-I,
Operation Inherent Resolve, and broader policy issues in Syria
and Iraq such as U.S. policy towards the Assad regime, the
Syria train and equip program, and the Iraq train and equip
program. The committee has received a number of staff-level
briefings on OSC-I and the security situations in Iraq, Syria,
and the region as well as the train and equip programs being
contemplated in Iraq and Syria. Additionally, the committee
received multiple Member-level briefings in closed session on
Iraq, Syria, and the region, and held hearings on U.S. policy
in the Middle East on February 11, 2014, the security situation
in Iraq and Syria on July 29, 2014, and the Administration's
strategy against ISIL on September 18, 2014, and November 13,
2014.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
re-authorize OSC-I and would allow for OSC-I to conduct
operational training on bases of the Government of Iraq.
Additionally, H.R. 3979 would authorize the training and
equipping of the Iraq Security Forces, Kurdish Security Forces,
tribal security forces, and local security forces through
December 2016. H.R. 3979 would also allow for the training and
equipping of appropriately vetted elements of the groups and
individuals of the Syrian opposition through December 2016.
Finally, H.R. 3979 would authorize the Counterterrorism
Partnership Fund, which would allow for the provision of
support and assistance to foreign security forces, groups, or
individuals for counterterrorism or crisis response missions
within the region of U.S. Central Command, but not to the
Government of Iraq due to the authorization for the Iraq train
and equip program.
The Greater Middle East
The committee continued robust oversight of the security
situation and U.S. policy and strategy within the greater
Middle East region. The committee received a number of staff
and Member-level briefings on this issue area and held a
hearing on U.S. policy in the Middle East on February 11, 2014,
and a hearing on the state of Al Qaeda on February 4, 2014. The
committee also held hearings with the Commander of U.S. Central
Command and the Commander of U.S. Africa Command on March 5,
2014.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
authorize the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, which would
allow for the provision of support and assistance to foreign
security forces, groups, or individuals for counterterrorism or
crisis response missions within the region of U.S. Central
Command and U.S. Africa Command, but not to the Government of
the Republic of Iraq due to the separate authorization for the
Iraq train and equip program. H.R. 3979 would also require the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State and the Director of National Intelligence, to provide an
independent assessment on Al Qaeda, including its affiliates,
its associated groups, and adherents since September 11, 2001.
Finally, H.R. 3979 would require the President to provide a
detailed summary of the planning guidance to deny safe haven to
Al Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
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. 3979, the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 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 (DOD) 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,
including holding a Member-level briefing with senior DOD
financial officials to receive an update on the FIAR plan on
December 9, 2014, and has continued to monitor efforts
announced by the Secretary of Defense in July 2013, 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
second 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 of 2011 (Public Law 112-
25) and defense sequestration are driving the Department of
Defense to reevaluate its organization and management structure
to identify cost savings. The Department continues to implement
organizational and management changes within the Department's
major headquarters resulting from the announcement by the
Secretary of Defense in July 2013, to identify cost savings
through management efficiencies and overhead reductions.
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. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, includes provisions that would require the Secretary
of Defense to report on the feasibility of reducing or
consolidating combatant command function and a plan to
implement a periodic review and analysis of management
headquarters.
Out of concern for some of the organizational changes being
implemented by the Department, H.R. 3979 would restore the
Office of Net Assessment (ONA) to its independent status, with
the Office reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense, and
increases the ONA budget for fiscal year 2015 by $10 million to
$18.9 million. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying
H.R. 3979 includes language expressing concern about
organizational changes within the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy, specifically the abolishment of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs,
and reservation about the potential for ``less senior-level
attention paid to nuclear forces, deterrence, nonproliferation,
and terrorism.''
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, 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 November in both 2013 and
2014. Supporting the Department's goal of achieving audit
readiness by the end of 2017, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
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 received notification that while a vast
majority of appropriations will be able to have an audit
performed on their Statement of Budgetary Activity, the
Statement of Budgetary Resources would not be audit ready by
September 30, 2014. The committee awaits a remediation strategy
from the Department that describes an alternative deadline by
which an auditable statement of budgetary resources will be
achieved, and a description of the plan for meeting that
alternative deadline, as instructed by section 1005 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239).
Acquisition Issues
Matters Related to Acquisition Policy
The committee continued its long-standing efforts to
improve 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 worked to improve acquisition
outcomes by addressing the acquisition environment with a focus
on the culture, processes, regulations, and statutes driving
acquisition decisions in the Department of Defense, industry,
and Congress. 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.
Despite the committee's efforts in these areas, the
committee remains concerned about significant shortcomings in
the current acquisition system. Therefore, in October 2013, the
committee initiated a long-term effort, led by Vice Chairman
Mac Thornberry, to generate lasting improvements in the system.
This reform effort started with an examination of 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 held a hearing on
October 29, 2013, ``Twenty-five years of acquisition reform:
Where do we go from here?'' where the committee received
testimony from a panel of outside experts. This foundational
hearing was followed by three additional scheduled hearings
focused on the acquisition processes of the Department of
Defense.
On February 12, 2014, the committee had planned a hearing
on ``Overcoming Obstacles in Acquisition Reform'' which was
canceled due to weather. Despite the cancellation, the chairman
of the committee invited all available Members of the committee
to meet at the allotted time to discuss the topic with the
witnesses. Following that event, the committee met on June 24,
2014, to receive additional testimony from a panel of outside
experts on ``Case Studies in DOD Acquisition: Finding What
Works''.
After hearing multiple testimonies from outside experts on
these matters, the committee convened on July 8, 2014, to
receive testimony from the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) and the Acting Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Readiness and Force Management) to
discuss the Department's efforts to improve the acquisition
system.
In addition to the committee's formal activities regarding
acquisition policy improvements, the committee also sent
letters to several industrial base representatives and union
representatives to seek views of the defense industry on how to
improve the Department of Defense acquisition system. In
working to understand and fix the root causes behind why, after
decades of various reform efforts, many Department of Defense
acquisition programs continue to run over cost and behind
schedule, the committee also sent a letter to all committee
Members on July 30, 2014, asking for each Member to consult
with local stakeholders and to provide specific suggestions on
acquisition policy changes. Furthermore, the committee sent a
letter to the Secretary of Defense on October 6, 2014,
requesting the Department communicate any views, including any
legislative or policy proposals related to this reform effort,
on a rolling basis, rather than withhold those views to
coincide with the release of the President's budget request.
Timely and actionable responses to these queries will be an
invaluable contribution to the committee's efforts moving
forward.
The committee also continued to actively work with the
Department of Defense to review the application of regulatory
frameworks so as to begin eliminating unnecessary overhead, red
tape, and bureaucracy. Furthermore, the committee recognizes
that service contracting represents an increasingly important
and large proportion of the acquisition expenditures of the
Department of Defense and yet the majority of previous reform
efforts have focused primarily on major defense acquisition
programs. The Department currently lacks accurate and reliable
data on contracted services, and the military departments have
not developed plans to use that data to inform workforce
planning, workforce mix, and budget decision making. Therefore,
the committee has continued its efforts to strengthen oversight
of these matters by reviewing the management structure for
these contracts and increasing the visibility and transparency
of these contracts by reviewing service contract inventories.
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, the committee believes
that 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 conducted a joint exercise
in early 2014 to specifically focus on planning, training,
execution, and management of operational contract support. The
committee applauds these efforts and expects this exercise and
other events focused on developing the Department's ability to
effectively and efficiently contract in support of contingency
operations will greatly strengthen the competency of the
acquisition workforce. Furthermore, the committee included
several sections in H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, which would expand prohibitions on contracting with
the enemy. These sections would expand the authorities provided
in section 841 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to other Federal
agencies.
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 continued 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.
As part of this effort, the committee included a provision,
section 853 of H.R. 3979, requesting additional information on
the effect of program manager tenure and career development on
acquisition outcomes.
The committee is aware that the problems in the defense
acquisition system have been persistent and resistant to past
reform efforts, and the committee recognizes that there are no
``silver bullet'' reform packages that can immediately fix the
current acquisition system in a holistic manner. Therefore, the
committee believes its reform effort will be an ongoing and
iterative process that will continue to be embedded in the
committee's regular work.
Defense Industrial Base Matters
The committee continued to monitor closely the health,
security, and innovative capacity of the defense industrial
base, especially in light of changes to the defense strategy,
the need for recapitalization and modernization after 13 years
of war, and continuing budget pressures. The committee is aware
that the industrial base for complex major weapon systems has
shrunk dramatically in the past decade, limiting the ability of
the Department of Defense to control costs, encourage
innovation, and reap the benefits of competition.
The weakening of the defense industrial base and the
increasingly global nature of business will continue to
challenge the capabilities of current systems used to monitor
industrial security. In addition to overseeing the
effectiveness of the Defense Security Service to carry out this
mission, the committee continued to examine traditional
mechanisms for industrial security, such as the personnel
security clearance process, the National Industrial Security
Program, and other areas where adversaries could exploit
vulnerabilities or loopholes in the acquisition process to
undermine the U.S. defense industrial base.
The committee also noted that industry is struggling 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. Therefore, the committee continued its
oversight activities in these areas and included provisions in
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 that
would:
(1) Provide for a temporary extension of, and
amendments to, the test program for negotiation of
comprehensive small business subcontracting plans;
(2) Require a plan for improving data on bundled or
consolidated contracts;
(3) Provide authority for Procurement Technical
Assistance Centers to provide education to small
businesses on certain requirements of Arms Export
Control Act (Public Law 94-329);
(4) Address matters related to the improper use of
reverse auctions and other low-price contracting
approaches; and
(5) Improve contracting opportunities for women-owned
small businesses.
Information Technology and Business Systems
Information technology (IT) systems are critical enablers
for the Department of Defense. As the IT budget represents
nearly $32 billion of the Department of Defense's total budget,
it also represents a major investment area requiring the same
rigorous planning 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 related hearings on March 13, 2013, on
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force'' and on March
12, 2014, on ``Information Technology and Cyber Operations:
Modernization and Policy Issues in a Changing National Security
Environment.'' In addition to hearings, the Subcommittee on
Intelligence, Emerging Threats, and Capabilities held briefings
on a number of related topics, including: Department of Defense
Electromagnetic Pulse as required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) on
May 16, 2013; and Information Technology Acquisition Policy and
Practices on January 9, 2014. Additionally, the subcommittee
conducted detailed oversight of specific programmatic issues
related to IT.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 requirements 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.
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House,
included several legislative provisions related to information
technology, including: a section that would require the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct a review of
the Air Force Network-Centric Solutions II (NETCENTS II)
contract and provide a certification that it is effective in
delivering information technology capabilities for the joint
force; a provision that would amend section 2222 of title 10,
United States Code, to expand certification requirements,
investment review processing and enterprise architecture
requirements from defense business systems to all defense
information technology systems; and a section that would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a certification that
defense mission-critical infrastructure requiring
electromagnetic pulse protection that receives power supply
from commercial or other non-military sources is protected from
the adverse effects of man-made or naturally occurring
electromagnetic pulse.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included several directives
related to information technology, including: requiring a
report on the findings of a review of the High Performance
Computing Modernization Program; a plan to provide internet
access to families on Kwajalein Atoll; a briefing on a
comprehensive strategy for developing and fielding an
information management architecture for the Department's
Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Response Enterprise; a
review of MIL-STD 800-125-1 and -2 to determine if the
standards are in need of updating based on the current and
future projected threats; an Inspector General review of
Department of Defense noncompetitive information technology
contracts to determine whether they were properly justified as
sole source; and a briefing that identifies all of the major
funded activities within each of the military services and
defense agencies that currently contribute to the Joint
Information Environment.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
included several legislative provisions related to information
technology, including: a requirement to develop standards and
define architectures necessary to enable open systems
approaches in key mission areas of the Department of Defense; a
report on implementation of acquisition processes for
information technology systems; revisions to section 2222 of
title 10, United States Code; development and implementation of
operational effectiveness metrics for the Joint Information
environment; a requirement to migrate the Army Distributed
Common Ground System to open architecture; enhanced authority
for Chief Information Officers of certain covered agencies;
improved reporting and program reviews for certain information
technology programs of the civilian agencies; and
implementation of a Federal data center consolidation
initiative.
READINESS
Strategic Military Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness focused strategic oversight
efforts for the 113th Congress on Department of Defense
military training, logistics, maintenance, military
construction, installations, family housing, and the base
closure and realignment process. The committee also focused
oversight efforts on the civilian personnel workforce, energy
security, and environmental issues that affect Department of
Defense operations across the globe. The committee remains
concerned about the detrimental impacts of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) on military readiness and the
budgetary constraints that led to lost training opportunities,
delayed or deferred ship deployments, missed depot
availabilities, and deferred maintenance requirements.
The committee visited numerous overseas bases to assess the
skills of assigned forces, the material condition of equipment,
the readiness challenges associated with forward deployed force
presence, in addition to the appropriate application of
military construction in the overseas and contingency
operations environments. Oversight trips included visits to
countries such as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Turkey,
and Jordan to examine U.S. Central Command's plans to sustain
operations while simultaneously withdrawing forces and
equipment from Afghanistan. Additionally, the committee
conducted close oversight of expanding operations in the U.S.
Africa Command area of responsibility, the development of
various crisis response capabilities under the ``New Normal''
execution order, and maiden deployments of new capabilities,
such as the Littoral Combat Ship.
The Department's readiness posture and ability to respond
to new and emerging threats, such as terrorist movements in the
Islamic Republic of Iraq and in Syria, an Ebola outbreak in
West Africa, and the Russian incursion into Ukraine, remained
key areas of oversight, particularly after implementation of
the new Defense Strategic Guidance. The committee continues to
assess Department of Defense force-generation capabilities, its
ability to return to training for full-spectrum operations, and
the alignment of military forces to fulfill two primary
strategic demands: rotational presence and crisis contingency
preparedness.
Despite short-term readiness gains in the past year, the
return of sequestration-level funding in fiscal year 2016 will
lead to a military that 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. Consequently, the committee will continue to
aggressively oversee and monitor the impacts of sequestration
as a result of Public Law 112-25.
Force Readiness
The preservation and restoration of force readiness remains
the committee's highest priority. The committee will continue
to examine the readiness of deployed personnel supporting
ongoing contingencies worldwide, in addition to the ability of
the services to conduct full-spectrum combat surge or
contingency missions and the Department's ability to maintain
capabilities in the decades to come. The committee monitored
both the short-term and long-term impacts of sequestration on
operational tempo and sought to correct current readiness
shortfalls in equipment, personnel, and training to include
flying hours, steaming days, and full-spectrum training miles
through a series of briefings. Coinciding with this effort, the
committee held hearings on the readiness posture of the
individual military departments, Navy surface fleet
maintenance, potential risks associated with sequestration, and
the Department's over-reliance on Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) funding to fund base-level requirements.
The committee noted that, while slight improvements in
readiness across the total force occurred in 2014, non-deployed
units continued to face readiness challenges including
equipment unavailability, personnel shortages, and lost
training opportunities. The committee notes that the impacts of
sequestration and top-line budget reductions will continue to
pose a long-term risk to readiness for the foreseeable future.
The committee remains concerned that these challenges pose a
significant threat to national security and the safety and
security of the Armed Forces.
To better understand the unique challenges sequestration
presents to the total force readiness, the Joint Explanatory
Statement to accompany H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
to review readiness trends and risks within the military
departments with a particular focus on gaps between combatant
commander requirements and operational plan execution. Further,
the committee mandated 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, in addition to providing details on the
efficacy of major exercises and data on the Nation's military
readiness for cyber operations.
The committee also tasked GAO with key assessments on
emerging readiness issues, such as forward-deployed naval
forces and associated sustainment issues, the Department of
Defense's Arctic capabilities, and contracts for services
spending. Finally, H.R. 3979 would provide the Secretary of the
Navy an exception to Title 10 maintenance requirements for the
purpose of a 2-year pilot program, for no more than three
Littoral Combat Ship vessels, in order to permit corrective and
preventive maintenance during extended deployments.
With the drawdown of operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan and the escalation of operations elsewhere in the
world, the committee anticipates a smaller decrease than
forecast in the realignment of funds from the Department's
Overseas Contingency Operations budget to the operation and
maintenance base budgets, which may present challenges to fully
understanding and resourcing steady-state operations tempo. To
address this issue, H.R. 3979 would require the Department of
Defense to include an analysis of enduring mission requirements
for equipping, training, sustainment, and other operation and
maintenance activities that are financed by the OCO budget as
part of the next Defense Strategy Review.
The committee also remains concerned that a full reset of
the total force remains at risk in a constrained budget
environment. Subsequently, the committee provided rigorous
oversight of ongoing property accountability, retrograde, and
depot maintenance efforts. Further, the committee will continue
to monitor the disposition of non-standard equipment returning
from Afghanistan to ensure that defense articles are budgeted
for and sustained properly and that excess equipment is
reutilized by partner nations or U.S. state and local entities
to the maximum extent possible to minimize waste.
Overall, while the committee believes that readiness levels
have improved across the military services, readiness remains
fragile and is vulnerable to changes in mission, competing
resource priorities, and is contingent upon forecasted
deployments to support operations in Afghanistan and Syria and
Iraq. This fragility is especially acute with respect to non-
deployed ground-force units which have sacrificed their
readiness in order to provide additional resources to deployed,
or next-to-deploy, units. The committee remains concerned about
the number of these non-deployed units reporting they are not
ready for their core missions or would need additional time,
personnel, and equipment to prepare for deployment. In
response, the committee held a number of briefings and
hearings, and conducted multiple oversight visits to affected
units.
The committee remains concerned about future readiness
levels, given the return of sequestration in fiscal year 2016
and a lower end-strength, which has reduced the Army's capacity
to undertake additional missions, such as providing logistical
and medical support to counter the spread of Ebola in West
Africa or helping reassure allies in Europe through the
European Reassurance Initiative, and has increased the risk to
major contingencies. This increased risk includes the Army's
new operational construct of a Regionally Aligned Force (RAF),
which has seen success in supporting geographical combatant
commanders and U.S. diplomatic missions abroad through smaller,
tailored deployments. To help Congress better understand the
RAF concept and better inform resourcing decisions, H.R. 3979
included an Army assessment of the RAF concept and tasked the
Army with a re-evaluation of other strategic assets, such as
prepositioned stocks, and their ability to support RAF
operations.
Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of
maintaining Army readiness. The committee notes the positive
trends in the reset, retrograde, and refurbishment of Army
equipment used in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and has
provided additional resources in fiscal year 2015 to continue
improving materiel readiness. However, the committee remains
concerned about the Army's ability to absorb another round of
sequestration-driven reductions without negatively affecting
reset needed for current operations and those likely to be
undertaken in the future and the growing long-term impacts of
deferring higher-level maintenance in favor of 10/20 standards
for units preparing to deploy or already forward deployed.
The committee also has growing concerns about the potential
return of disproportionally high readiness shortfalls within
the National Guard and Reserve Components after briefings and
hearings reinforced and re-emphasized potential future-year
issues. While these shortfalls have improved slightly over the
past 2 years, further years of sequestration could seriously
challenge the ability of the Reserve Component to remain
operationally ready. To help address the most critical
deficiencies in the Active and Reserve Components, H.R. 3979
would provide 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 required
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 for 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 with Operation Northern Watch following Operation
Desert Storm or, even more recently, with the simultaneous
operations in the State of Libya. This will be particularly
problematic for the Air National Guard and Air Force 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.
Unforeseen commitments unfolding in both Ukraine and Iraq
have led to increased operational tempo, despite the drawdown
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as demand for naval
assets continues to increase as a result of the rebalance to
the Pacific and other regional commands. The committee
continues to remain concerned about the size of the U.S. Navy
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 for which
maintenance was deferred. In recent months, those trends seem
to be negatively affecting the subsurface fleet as well.
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 GAO review
the Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface
combatant ship material readiness. Additionally, in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66), the committee included 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.
H.R. 3979 included additional funding to address depot
maintenance shortfalls.
The committee also continues to monitor the impacts of
higher-than-anticipated operational tempo imposed on the Marine
Corps due to emerging requirements across the world. Like it
has with the Army, the committee has monitored the Marine
Corps' reset operations to replace and refurbish equipment and
vehicles damaged in wartime operations as well as its
collective training activities and ``new normal'' deployments
in support of the Department of State.
While Marine Corps readiness has improved over the past 2
years, progress remains fragile, and the committee continues to
be concerned about the impacts of another round of
sequestration on a Marine Corps that is supporting a growing
set of enduring missions, such as greater support to U.S.
embassies, crisis response elements across multiple regions of
the world, and the resumption of the Unit Deployment Program in
support of U.S. Pacific Command. To ensure that the Marine
Corps remains ready for current operations, H.R. 3979 contains
additional resources for the creation of a Special Purpose
Marine Air-Ground Task Force in both U.S. Southern Command and
U.S. Central Command, as well as increased funding for depot
maintenance, training days, and exercises.
The committee also continues to monitor the risk the Marine
Corps has accepted in its heavy reliance on Overseas
Contingency Operations funding to maintain its required end
strength supporting geographic combatant command requirements,
as outlined in the Department of Defense's New Defense
Strategic Guidance.
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. The
committee included provisions in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) and
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, to
extend authorities for premium pay and allowances, benefits and
gratuities for deployed civilians. The committee has also
continued to closely monitor the implementation of each
military department's efficiencies initiatives, including the
Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, which
focuses on the civilian workforce. These initiatives included a
civilian hiring freeze for all the military departments as well
as significant personnel restrictions which started in 2010 and
remain in effect.
The committee focused significant oversight efforts on the
decision announced by the Secretary of Defense on May 14, 2013,
to impose an 11-day furlough (later decreased to 6 days) on the
civilian workforce. The committee remains concerned about the
effects of the furlough and 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. Additionally, the committee remains concerned
about the negative effect furloughs of working capital fund
employees have on military readiness. The furlough of working
capital fund employees when monies and workload are available
only delays delivery times and raises rates, imposes
unnecessary costs to taxpayers and reducing military readiness.
Energy and Environment
Energy Security
The committee conducted vigorous oversight of the
Department of Defense'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
opportunity 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. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) included several
provisions regarding energy policy, to include a focus on
alternative fuel and installation energy specifically. H.R.
3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would prohibit
the use of Department of Defense funds for large-scale
purchases of drop-in fuels unless it is cost competitive, and
it also requires the Department to provide a business case
analysis to Congress before constructing a biofuel refinery.
Additionally, the report directs the Comptroller General to
review the Department's Annual Energy Management report, and
directs the Secretary of Defense to report on how the
Department of Defense is considering the operational impact of
energy logistics.
As directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee 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.
As directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446)
accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee received
briefings from the Department of Defense regarding the
infrastructure and operational requirements associated with the
Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility.
Environment
The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to
include the military services' environmental restoration
program and adherence to Federal, state, and local cleanup,
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. There have
been several areas of emerging concern to include protecting
DOD training, testing, and operations from encroachment, the
ability for DOD to operate in the Arctic, and persisting
concerns regarding the use of burn pits in contingency
environments.
H.R. 1960, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, as passed by the House, 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 for Fiscal
Year 2014, the committee continues its oversight regarding the
Department of Defense's ability to operate in the Arctic by
directing a roadmap for 2020-2030, 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.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
includes several provisions, to include a Department of Defense
report regarding compliance with applicable laws and DOD
Instructions regarding the disposal of covered waste in burn
pits in addition to a Comptroller General review. Additionally,
there is a Sikes Act modification to permit lump-sum payments,
as well as a provision that permits DOD to clean up the former
naval bombardment area on the Island of Culebra, Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
As directed by the committee report (H. Rept. 113-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014, 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. As directed by the committee report
(H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the
committee received a briefing from the Department of Defense
regarding invasive species management and coconut rhinoceros
beetles.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Basing
The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant
change in force structure both in the United States and
overseas as a result of the drawdown of military forces from
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Global Defense Posture
Review, and budgetary pressures being placed on the Department
of Defense. These rebasing movements affect not only U.S.
global presence, but they may also have significant
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military
construction, and quality of life for military members and
their families.
The committee has been specifically interested in ensuring
the Department of Defense has the requisite tools and
capabilities to support the Pacific rebalance effort. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66), included a legislative section that restricted
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);
master plans for the Marine Corps distributed laydown on Guam
and Hawaii; and, a coordinated Federal agencies plan to provide
public infrastructure on Guam. The Act included several
exceptions to the restrictions to allow 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 support the realignment of
Marine Corps assets to Guam.
Public Law 113-66 Act also included 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. H.R. 3979, the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included restrictions
that would amend section 2822 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public
Law 113-66) and would remove certain restrictions limiting the
movement of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa, Japan. H.R. 3979
would specifically eliminate the prohibition on construction
activities and replace it with an overall cost cap on such
construction, reflecting the Department's July 2014 submitted
Master Plan for Guam. H.R. 3979 would continue the restrictions
on the development of public infrastructure on Guam unless a
grant, transfer, cooperative agreement, or supplemental funding
for the development of public infrastructure is specifically
authorized by law and would be used to carry out a project
included in the report of the Economic Adjustment Committee
required by section 2831(d) of Public Law 113-66.
The committee also assessed the Department of Defense's
request for two additional rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC). After contemplating information provided by the
Department of Defense that supports two additional rounds of
BRAC, Public Law 113-66 included language that stated nothing
in the Act shall be construed to authorize a future BRAC round.
For fiscal year 2015, H.R. 3979 retained this BRAC restriction
and the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979
noted that the Department of Defense's and military
departments' current estimates of excess infrastructure
capacity associated with military installations are based on
outdated data from the analysis done in support of the 2005
BRAC round. Due to the force structure changes and
infrastructure investments and management strategies that have
occurred since the 2005 BRAC round, the committee believes that
the Department's excess infrastructure capacity assessments
should be based on current infrastructure data and informed by
current force structure projections. As a result, the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2015 was reduced for
Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance by $8.0 million, which
represented the funding requested by the Department to develop
recommendations and manage a new BRAC round.
The committee is concerned about the use of host-nation
funding sources on military construction projects and potential
concerns to this program that have occurred over the past
several years. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) included a requirement to
obtain a specific congressional authorization to use host-
nation funding in support of a project in excess of the
military construction authority provided in section 2805 of
title 10, United States Code. For fiscal year 2015, H.R. 3979
included language that would clarify the requirement of section
2687a of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section
2807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014 (Public Law 113-66), that military construction projects
built with in-kind payments or in-kind contributions required
by bilateral agreements be specifically authorized by law. This
provision also included an enactment date effective the later
of September 30, 2016, or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2017. The provision also exempted military construction
projects funded with payments-in-kind or in-kind contributions
that were the subject of negotiation between the U.S. and a
host country as of the date of enactment of this Act. Until the
enactment date, H.R. 3979 requires notification to the
congressional defense committees at least 30 days prior to
initiating any military construction project built for
Department of Defense personnel outside the U.S. using
payments-in-kind or in-kind contributions and make other
conforming changes.
Military Construction Programming
With regard to construction programming, the committee
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to
address emerging construction requirements. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) contained a provision that authorized the use of operations
and maintenance funds for contingency construction. H.R. 3979,
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would extend this
authorization to the combatant commanders for another year.
Further, the committee increased the Department of
Defense's flexibility with regard to the authority to carry out
unspecified minor military construction. H.R. 3979 modified
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, by increasing the
threshold associated with operation and maintenance funding for
minor military construction purposes from $750,000 to $1.0
million. H.R. 3979 also unified the threshold for application
of unspecified minor construction from $2.0 million to $3.0
million and increased the maximum amount of unspecified minor
military construction funding that can be used to correct
facility deficiencies that threaten the life, safety, or health
of personnel from $3.0 million to $4.0 million.
The committee continues to support initiatives to
streamline the existing military construction programming
authorities, and Public Law 113-66 included language that
expanded the authority for military laboratories to implement
construction projects and required local installation security
assessments to determine the appropriate level of anti-
terrorism/force protection criteria to insert in future
construction projects. This Act also deleted certain outdated
reporting requirements previously provided to Congress. H.R.
3979 also included language to modify section 2802 of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Secretary concerned
notify the congressional defense committees at least 15 days
prior to the initiation of any construction, land acquisition,
or defense-access road project by a military department,
defense agency, or Department of Defense Field Activity on a
military installation that will be carried out pursuant to a
provision of law other than a Military Construction
Authorization Act.
Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal
The real property management process requires extensive
oversight to maintain more than $850.3 billion in
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $37.0 billion, or
nearly 7.5 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. To
ensure proper oversight of this real property inventory, in the
committee report (H. Rept. 113-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the committee
expressed concern about the extensive use of existing leasing
authorities and requested the Comptroller General assess the
magnitude of Department of Defense leasing efforts. The
committee report also included a requirement for the
Comptroller General 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, the Joint Explanatory Statement
accompanying the 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.
With regard to the execution of previous BRAC rounds, the
committee remained concerned that the efficiencies associated
with the process are offset with the inability to quickly
dispose of excess property and the potential lack of overall
savings to the federal government. Therefore, the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would direct the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 1, 2015, as to the overall effectiveness of the property
disposal process from each prior BRAC round. In addition, the
committee is concerned that previous recommendations were not
effectively implemented, thus obviating certain cost saving
opportunities, and directed the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees on the BRAC 2005
recommendations to merge or consolidate functions to become
more joint.
The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense
facility sustainment accounts and found that significant
shortfalls needed to be addressed to manage basic services. The
committee proposed increased funding to these accounts in both
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and
H.R. 3979 to address 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. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
provided 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 of 2011
(Public Law 112-25) on end strength draw-down 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 military
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, 2 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.
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee
remained concerned with the continued reduction of military
manpower and force structure. The committee supported the end
strengths of the services requested in the President's budget,
in H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House, but limited
the reductions by placing a floor on the military services end
strength since there remains concern with the future projected
manning levels based on testimony from the service chiefs. They
testified that sequestration forced reductions of end strength
will drive readiness of the force down decreasing the ability
to accomplish assigned missions putting our Nation's defense at
high risk.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on
January 16, 2014, to receive testimony on future recruiting
challenges in the fiscally constrained environment. The
subcommittee also held a hearing on March 25, 2014, to receive
testimony on the Military Personnel Overview from Department of
Defense and service personnel chiefs about military personnel
issues addressed in the President's budget submission for
fiscal year 2015. The subcommittee also held a hearing
September 17, 2014, to receive a briefing from GAO on their
report on the cost of General and Flag Officers.
Military Benefits
The committee continued to closely monitor compensation
programs during the first and second 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, and again as part of H.R.
4435, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015 as passed by the House on May 22, 2014, to recommend no
change to current law, which would allow a 1.8 percent raise in
basic pay during fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 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. Again,
following the passage of H.R. 4435 the President used his
authority and notified Congress that he was setting the 2015
military basic pay raise at 1.0 percent, again, well below the
Employment Cost Index. Consistent with the position of the
House, H.R. 3304 and H.R. 4435 neither affirms nor rejects the
President's decision. However, in the committee report (H.
Rept. 113-103) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and the committee report (H. Rept.
113-446) accompanying Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, 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 fiscal year 2015 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. Further, the committee included legislation
that would require the Department of Defense to use the
services of an independent organization experienced in grocery
retail analysis to assess any proposed changes to the defense
commissary system. 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.
On April 8, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
met to receive testimony on the Beneficiary and Advocacy
Overview of the fiscal year 2015 President's Budget. On
September 17, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a briefing
from Government Accountability Office on their report on the
cost of General and Flag Officers.
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.
Continuing the committee's efforts towards addressing
deployment related stress on the family, H.R. 3979, the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would direct
requirements for the Secretary of Defense to develop a standard
method for collecting, reporting and assessing any suicide or
attempted suicide of members of the Armed Forces, including
Reserve Components, and any death reported as a suicide of a
dependent of a member of the Armed Forces.
To further support service members who are deployed, H.R.
3979 includes an amendment to the Servicemembers Civil Relief
Act (50 U.S.C.) that would require temporary custody orders
rendered by a court based solely on the deployment of the
parent to last only for the period justified by the deployment.
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
heath 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 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 received a
briefing from the Defense Center of Excellence on Psychological
Health and Traumatic Brain Injury. On November 15, 2013, the
subcommittee 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.
During the second session of the 113th Congress, the
committee continued oversight on mental health support for
members of the Armed Forces and their families. To that end,
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
direct requirements for the Secretary of Defense to provide a
face-to-face mental health assessment to all members of the
Armed Forces, including the Selected Reserve, once each
calendar year. In addition, H.R. 3979 requires a mental health
assessment once every 180 days while a service member is
deployed. H.R. 3979 also requires the Secretary evaluate
specific tools, processes and best practices to improve the
identification and treatment of mental health conditions and
traumatic brain injury among members of the Armed Forces.
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 congressional 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 Department of
Defense 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, directed the Secretary of Defense to complete
implementation of the Healthcare Artifact and Image Management
Solution (HAIMS) within 180 days following enactment of the
Act.
During the second session of the 113th Congress, the
committee continued to exercise the oversight plan through
visits to medical facilities both overseas and in the United
States. The committee staff continued aggressive oversight on
the progress toward implementing the DOD-VA integrated
electronic health record though monthly meetings with the
Program Executive Officer. The committee remains concerned with
the depth of analysis undertaken by the Department of Defense
to inform major decisions affecting the structure of the
military health system and ultimately the availability of and
access to military health care. As such, H.R. 3979, the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would prohibit the
Secretary of Defense from restructuring a military medical
treatment facility until the Comptroller General reviews a
report submitted to the Congressional defense committees, by
the Secretary, that includes detailed information on the
medical treatment facilities included in the Military Health
System Modernization Study.
On February 26, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel met to receive testimony on the defense health
agency. On March 4, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on the Progress in Modernizing DOD Electronic Health
Records. On April 3, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on Progress in Modernizing DOD Electronic Health
Records.
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 continued to provide oversight of these
vitally important programs in the second session of the 113th
Congress. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
included a provision that would direct a review of commissary
management, food and pricing operations to help answer the
committee's concern about arbitrary budgetary decisions and
future sustainability of the commissary system.
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 Subcommittee on
Military Personnel 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 Subcommittee on Military Personnel is expected to continue
its active oversight of POW/MIA issues.
In March 2014, the Secretary of Defense made the decision
to consolidate the POW/MIA accounting community into a single
defense agency in order to create a single chain of command and
increase efficiency. This decision was based on the GAO review
and CAPE's recommendations. On July 15, 2014, the Subcommittee
on Military Personnel met to receive testimony from the
Department of Defense on their review of the Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action (POW/MIA) community and the restructuring of
these agencies as directed by the Secretary of Defense. As a
result, H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
direct modifications to the requirements for accounting for
members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees listed as missing by establishing a single defense
agency for POW/MIA affairs and provide additional authorities
to enhance recovery efforts and provide family members
information.
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
(UCMJ). 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; and
(9) Require both the Secretary of Defense and the
independent panel established in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 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.
During the second session of the 113th Congress, the
committee continued to conduct aggressive oversight on sexual
assault among members of the military and to work with the
Department of Defense and the military services to address
accountability, prosecution of offenders and victim support.
Committee oversight included a series of briefings on key issue
areas, including: on March 6, 2014, the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel met to receive a briefing on Sexual Assault
Prosecution and Conviction Rates; o on June 25, 2014, the
subcommittee met to receive a briefing on Status of the
Implementation of the Sexual Assault Provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2012, 2013 and 2014
and the Secretary of Defense Initiatives Announced in August
201; and, on July 31, 2014 the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on the Recommendations from the Response Systems to
Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel.
In addition, further reforms were included in H.R. 3979,
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, to include:
(1) Changes to when and under which circumstances
depositions may be ordered under the Uniformed Code of
Military Justice;
(2) Expanding access to Special Victims Counsel to
members of the reserve components if an alleged sex-
related offense occurred while the member was serving
on active duty, full-time National Guard duty or
inactive duty training, or if the circumstances of the
sex-related offense has a nexus to the military service
of the victim;
(3) Requiring that a victim be consulted regarding
their preference whether the offense should be
prosecuted by court-martial or in a civilian court with
jurisdiction over the offense and that the convening
authority consider the victim's preference when making
a determination whether to refer the charge for the
offense to a court-martial for trial;
(4) Eliminating ``good soldier defense'' for the
purpose of showing the probability of innocence for
sex-related offenses;
(5) Modification of Rule 513 of the Military Rules of
Evidence to include communication between a
psychotherapist and patient under privileged
communications; and
(6) Expanded the specified personnel who may be
assigned to duty as a Sexual assault Forensic Examiner
to include physicians, nurse practitioners, nurse
midwives, physician's assistants and registered nurses.
Wounded Warrior Care
The committee devoted substantial attention on the adequacy
of the Department of Defense (DOD) 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 provide oversight and expressed
concern about the backlog of cases in the Integrated Disability
Evaluation System. The committee monitored, 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. Committee staff visited the Department of Veterans
Affairs Disability Rating Activity Site (DRAS) to assess the
progress in reducing the number of backlogged disability claims
submitted by service members.
On September 17, 2013, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel 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.
On July 17, 2014, the subcommittee met to receive a briefing on
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs
Formularies and Medication Management for Transitioning Service
Members.
MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES
Overview
During the 113th Congress, particular attention was 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 in
support of 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 of 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 the People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic
of 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 conducted rigorous oversight of the Army and
Marine Corps' evolving plans to modernize their entire fleets
of armored combat 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 with effective
survivability requirements that mitigate the evolving anti-
vehicle threat posed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), as
well as protect against advances in anti-tank guided missiles.
In addition to ensuring modernization of existing armored
vehicles such as the M1 Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting
Vehicle, and Stryker Combat Vehicle, the committee also
continued aggressive efforts to oversee and shape the evolving
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, as well as the follow-on
effort to the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
program, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program, through
formal activities to include hearings, briefings, official
correspondence and travel, as well as senior level meetings
with Army and Marine Corps officials.
The committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces have 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,
ensuring realistic operational requirements are validated, as
well as 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 (GAO) and the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) to conduct rigorous oversight and
evaluation of major armored vehicle programs as necessary.
These oversight efforts also included official hearings, site
visits, close coordination with Army and Marine Corps
leadership as well as the office of the Director, Operational
Test and Evaluation, and careful scrutinization 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.
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 the Army's ABCT 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, directs 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.
As part of the legislative process for the development of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
the committee continued to express concerns about the ABCT
industrial base, as well as future development efforts for next
generation combat vehicles such as the Marine Corps' ACV 1.1
program, and the Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV)
program, respectively. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015, authorized an additional $309.0 million for the
continued sustainment of the ABCT industrial base. In addition,
H.R. 3979 would limit the obligation or expenditure of funds to
not more than 80 percent for the Army's AMPV program until the
Secretary of the Army submits a report to the congressional
defense committees on the Army's plan to eventually replace all
M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers (APC) within Echelons-Above-
Brigade (EAB) formations. The Army's current AMPV plan
addresses a critical shortfall within Echelons-Below-Brigade
(EBB) formations, but not survivability shortfalls within EAB
formations.
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 at all levels, 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 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 ensured the
National Guard and Reserve Component received modernized TWVs
to address current modernization shortfalls.
During the second session of the 113th Congress, the
committee expressed significant concerns about the long-term
viability of the TWV industrial base, as a result of severe
impacts of sequestration on the TWV industrial base,
specifically the medium and heavy TWV base. The committee
recommended several TWV industrial base risk mitigation efforts
and noted the Department's current strategy of stopping and
restarting mature production lines is inefficient and
problematic for the TWV industrial base. The committee believes
that smooth and predictable funding levels, and not abrupt and
large swings in funding and production requirements, would
result in the best outcome for taxpayers, the industrial base,
the military services, and, ultimately, the warfighter. As
such, H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
authorized an additional $100.0 million for medium and heavy
TWVs as part of a comprehensive industrial base risk mitigation
effort.
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. 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.
H.R. 3979 authorizes $229.3 million, the full amount requested
for the JLTV program that continues to remain on cost and on
schedule.
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 platforms, and continued to note the importance
of these platforms, as well as indicate that they will likely
continue operation at high operational tempos in very
challenging environments. The committee has highlighted the
need to continue to upgrade and reset these 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 Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) as well as future
Army combat aviation programs. In particular, the committee has
focused on the Army's restructured acquisition plan resulting
from the cancellation of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter,
the divestment of the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior fleet, and the
possible transfer of AH-64 Apache helicopters from the National
Guard to the Active Component. The committee engaged in senior
level discussions with Army and National Guard leadership, the
Government Accountability Office, and retired General officers
in order to gain a better understanding of the Army's intent
with the ARI. The committee also conducted oversight on 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, directed an additional $75.0 million for the
LUH program.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, fully
supported the budget request for Army Aviation with funding for
197 new rotorcraft. In addition, the H.R. 3979 addressed
critical shortfalls in Army National Guard rotorcraft
modernization and authorized an additional $103.0 million for
the most modernized version of the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter,
solely for the Army National Guard. H.R. 3979 would establish a
National Commission on the Future of the Army and prevent the
transfer of any National Guard AH-64 Apache helicopters in
fiscal year 2015. H.R. 3979 also clarifies the limitations on
the authority of the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
the Army with respect to the potential transfer of up to 48 AH-
64 Apache attack helicopters in fiscal year 2016 from the Army
National Guard to the regular Army pending certification from
the Secretary of Defense.
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 result in a network-enabled, rather than a network-
dependent, Army. The committee also closely monitored the
Army's ongoing Network Integration Exercises that occur at Fort
Bliss, Texas; the committee worked with the tactical network
industrial base, as well as the Army, to help mitigate any
potential barriers to participation in the these exercises. The
committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and
Land Forces, provided oversight on the Army's Tactical Network
Modernization roadmap. The roadmap is a blueprint for industry
and Government to focus development efforts and bring forward
innovations to fill potential capability gaps. It will also
help direct the Army's limited modernization resources to
investments that will have the greatest short-, mid- and long-
term impact for the end user.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
briefing on the Army's Tactical Network on July 30, 2014. The
purpose was to allow Members to gain a better understanding of
the core capabilities provided by the Army's Tactical Network,
as well as to discuss the issues and challenges facing those
network programs and associated industrial base.
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'') for clothing and individual equipment, especially
personnel protection 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 to better protect against ballistic
threats as well as prevent traumatic brain injury; improved
camouflage uniforms, and flame resistant/fire retardant
uniforms; long-term management and viability of these
associated niche industrial bases to include ways to
incentivize industry to invest in research and development.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide an
assessment of the long term sustainment requirements for the
body armor industrial base, to include supply chains for combat
helmets, soft armor, and hard armor components. The committee
finally received this assessment in March 2014 and the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces reviewed this
assessment extensively. The report's findings influenced the
legislation of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015.
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.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
addressed committee concerns regarding the body armor
industrial base. Based on the required assessment mentioned
above, as well as other assessments the committee reviewed from
the Defense Logistics Agency, the committee believed there was
significant risk to the body armor industrial base both in the
near-term and the long-term. H.R. 3979 authorized an additional
$80.0 million as an industrial base risk mitigation effort for
body armor. The committee believes the additional funds would
prevent any unnecessary breaks in production, and help maintain
a competitive industrial base.
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 March 26, 2014.
The Navy witness testified that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are
reaching the end of their projected service-life and will
require replacement or modifications to further extend their
service-life to eventual deployment of the F-35 aircraft, and
noted that the Department of the Navy's strike fighter
shortfall would reach a manageable level of 35 aircraft in
2023. Also at the hearing on March 26, 2014, the Air Force
witness testified to an Air Force requirement for 1,900 fighter
aircraft, but fiscal constraints resulted in a need to retire
334 fighter aircraft leaving the Air Force significantly below
its requirement of 1,900 fighter aircraft. The Air Force noted
that it planned to retire about 100 A-10 aircraft in fiscal
year 2015. To maintain remaining force structure, Air Force
officials informed the subcommittee that any shortfall
mitigation will include executing funded sustainment and fleet
management actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30 and 32 aircraft,
newer block 40 and 50 service life extension, and targeted
modernization and examination of the overall force structure to
ensure viable warfighting capabilities are maintained. H.R.
3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, authorized an
increase of 5 EA-18G aircraft for the Navy and the requested
procurement to extend the life of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B
fleets. H.R. 3979 also authorized the entire Air Force request
for modifications to its A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35
fleets. H.R. 3979 also included a provision that would prohibit
the Air Force from retiring any A-10 aircraft in fiscal year
2015, but would allow 36 A-10 aircraft to be placed into back-
up inventory (BAI) status subject to a certification by the
Secretary of Defense concerning the requirement to place these
aircraft into BAI status to enable readiness of the Air Force's
fighter aircraft fleets. Additionally, H.R. 3979 authorized the
budget request of $6.7 billion for 34 F-35 aircraft and $1.6
billion for F-35 development.
F-35/Joint Strike Fighter
During the 113th Congress, the committee continued
oversight of the F-35 program.
At a hearing on March 26, 2014, before the Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) Director of Acquisition and Sourcing testified
that as a result of the F-35 acquisition baseline determined in
early 2010, costs and schedule have been relatively stable. The
GAO witness also testified that delays in developmental flight
testing of the F-35's critical software may hinder delivery of
expected warfighting capabilities to the military services. The
GAO witness noted that F-35 developmental flight testing
comprises two key areas: mission systems and flight sciences.
Mission systems testing verifies that the software-intensive
systems that provide critical warfighting capabilities function
properly and meet requirements, while flight sciences testing
verifies the aircraft's basic flying capabilities. Challenges
in development and testing of mission systems software
continued through 2013, due largely to delays in software
delivery, limited capability in the software when delivered,
and the need to fix problems and retest multiple software
versions. The GAO witness also testified that aircraft
manufacturing continued to improve in 2013, and management of
the supply chain is evolving. As the number of aircraft in
production has increased, critical learning has taken place and
manufacturing efficiency has improved. As an example, the GAO
witness cited the fact that the prime contractor has seen
reductions in overall labor hours needed to manufacture the
aircraft, as expected. Moreover, in 2013, the GAO witness noted
that the contractor delivered 35 aircraft to the Government, 5
more than it delivered in 2012, and 26 more than it delivered
in 2011, and that the prime contractor has put in place a
supplier management system to oversee key supplier performance.
The GAO witness also noted that to execute the program as
planned, the DOD will have to increase funds steeply over the
next 5 years and sustain an average of $12.6 billion per year
through 2037, and that annual funding of this magnitude poses
long-term affordability risks given the current fiscal
environment.
In June 2014, the committee received the independent
software report required by section 218 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). The
independent software review team reported timelines for
completing F-35 software blocks were longer than expected or
predicted by the F-35 Joint Program Office. The committee has
recently received briefings from the F-35 Program Executive
Officer who has assured the committee that recommendations of
the report are being carefully considered by the F-35 Joint
Program Office, and most have been implemented. The F-35
Program Executive Officer (PEO) recently reported to the
committee that the timelines identified by the independent
software team are still overly pessimistic, and that earlier
software releases will occur much earlier than the independent
software team predicted. The F-35 PEO also reported that
estimated releases for later software blocks continue to
improve and will also be much earlier than those predicted by
the independent software review team. The committee will
continue to receive quarterly updates on F-35 software
progress.
On June 23, 2014, an F-35A stationed at Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida had a serious flight mishap resulting from an
engine failure and fire. The cause of the engine failure and
fire has been determined to be due to excessive rubbing between
an engine stator and adjacent plate seals. The F-35 Joint
Program Office and the engine manufacturer have identified both
short-term and long-term corrections to this problem. The
flight test schedule has been minimally affected. The committee
continues to monitor both the short-term and long-term
corrections to F-35 engines.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
authorize the budget request of $6.7 billion for 34 F-35
aircraft and $1.6 billion for F-35 development.
Aviation Programs
Through its oversight activities, the committee noted that
the B-52 strategic radar replacement (SRR) program replaced 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.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
authorize the budget request of $180.4 million for B-52
modifications and $55.5 million for B-52 system development.
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
and is pleased that the Secretary supports modifying all 76 B-
52 aircraft, instead of originally just 28 aircraft, with
CONECT capability. A dissimilar capability configuration would
have added complexity to supply chain management, aircrew
certification, training and employment, and would have
inherently complicated combatant commander operational planning
and execution by having to account for dissimilar aircraft
capabilities.
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. H.R. 3979 includes a
provision that would prohibit the Department of the Air Force
from taking any action to cancel or modify the C-130 AMP, but
would allow the Air Force to conduct communication, navigation
and surveillance and air traffic management programs subject to
a Secretary of Defense certification to the congressional
defense committees. H.R. 3979 also included an increase of
$30.0 million for C-130H propulsion system upgrades and an
increase of $35.8 million for the C-130 AMP.
Through its oversight activities, the 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, 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 and provided an authorization of appropriations for
this program in H.R. 3979.
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. To address these issues, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) includes 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. The
committee was also concerned about requirements associated with
the UCLASS program and included section 217 of H.R. 3979 that
would require the Secretary of Defense to certify the current
set of requirements.
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. As of December 8, 2014, the Navy
indicated they currently support 289 deployable battle force
ships. This available force structure contrasts the Navy's 2013
requirements projection of 306 ships and the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review Independent Panel requirement of 346 ships.
Despite these shortfalls, the committee seeks to obtain the
required capability and provide stability to the shipbuilding
industrial base.
Preeminent in this Navy force structure is the aircraft
carrier, which represents the embodiment of the United States'
ability to project power. Congress reiterated this support in
the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 3979, the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, and indicated that ``we
believe that Congress has been unambiguous about the support of
operational aircraft carriers and have provided sufficient
authorization of appropriations in this Act to maintain this
[11] carrier force structure. We fully anticipate that the
administration will support a budget request for fiscal year
2016 that is consistent with title 10, United States Code.''
Supporting this aircraft carrier force structure is the USS
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), which is the lead ship of the Ford-
class of aircraft carriers. Technologies introduced with the
USS Gerald R. Ford have challenged the Navy to maintain cost
controls on the lead ship. To address these cost issues, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) 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 on Seapower and Projection Forces also
continues its oversight of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
program. Public Law 113-66 includes a provision that would
restrict funding associated with LCS-25 and LCS-26 until: (1)
the Navy provides certain reports about the LCS program; and
(2) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes certain
certifications about the LCS program. Section 122 of H.R. 3979
also includes additional restrictions associated with mission
modules for the Littoral Combat Ship.
Finally, section 1026 of H.R. 3979 would limit the
obligation and expenditure of funds for fiscal year 2015
associated with the retirement, inactivation, or storage of
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class amphibious
ships. This section would also require the modernization of two
Ticonderoga-class cruisers to begin in fiscal year 2015.
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 has continued to focus on the
budget, cost, schedule, and performance outcomes of major
manned and unmanned aerial systems programs and examine the ISR
enterprise for balance in collection and analysis capabilities.
Also, close scrutiny of Office of the Secretary of Defense ISR
policy formulation and oversight have been and will continue to
be of interest to the committee. Long-standing concerns of the
committee remain: lack of an adequate long-term ISR
architecture and acquisition strategy; lack of supporting
analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance
collection programs data output with adequate resources to
process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; and
unnecessary proliferation of manned and unmanned vehicles and
sensors. The committee will expect 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 second session of the 113th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on
March 26, 2014, on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combat
aviation programs. Witnesses for this hearing included the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition; Deputy Commandant of the Marine
Corps for Aviation; Director of the Navy Air Warfare Division;
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; and the
Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and
Requirements. Among other issues, this hearing reviewed the
Department of Defense budget requests for unmanned aerial
systems for fiscal year 2015 including the requests for the RQ-
4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems, and the
U-2. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
provided the amounts of the budget request for the RQ-4 and U-
2, added $98.0 million for additional MQ-9 Reaper unmanned
aerial systems, and included a provision that would prohibit
the Air Force from taking any action to retire, or prepare to
retire, U-2 aircraft in fiscal year 2015.
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.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee also included several
directives related to directed energy weapons, including a
briefing on the plan for the future of the Army's High Energy
Laser Mobile Demonstrator; a briefing on the performance of the
Navy Laser Weapon System after deployment aboard the USS Ponce
this fiscal year; a briefing on the near-term needs of the
combatant commanders for a counter-electronics capability; and
a briefing by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the
impact of funding reductions for non-lethal systems on current
contingency operations planning.
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 and nuclear policies and programs of the
Department of Defense to ensure the safety, security,
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Particular emphasis has been placed on Department of Energy and
Department of Defense nuclear modernization plans 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, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on February 28,
2013, ``Nuclear Security: Actions, Accountability, and
Reform.'' This hearing continued the subcommittee's oversight
of the Department of Energy 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
on Strategic Forces 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 on Strategic Forces 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
Department of Energy and Department of Defense 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
on Strategic Forces 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 on Strategic Forces 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 on Strategic Forces held a classified briefing on
the same topic at the subcommittee-level. Finally, on September
10, 2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 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.
H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014, included several legislative provisions
related to nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security
enterprise. This includes provisions that would provide
additional congressional oversight mechanisms for nuclear force
structure decisions, strengthen interagency coordination on
nuclear weapons decision-making, provide momentum and increase
congressional oversight of efforts to reform security practices
at the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security
Administration, 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.
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee
continued its oversight of nuclear deterrence and the nuclear
security enterprise with a series of hearings and briefings. On
February 11, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a
closed briefing on nuclear weapon and missile developments in
South Asia. On March 5, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces conducted another classified briefing in the ongoing
series of updates on arms control compliance. On March 26,
2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held an open hearing
to discuss the ``Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on the
Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise,'' where Members
discussed the initial findings of a congressionally-mandated
independent advisory panel exploring longstanding problems at
the Department of Energy and NNSA.
On April 8, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held
a hearing on ``Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Atomic
Energy Defense and Nuclear Forces,'' where members reviewed the
annual budget request for all nuclear weapons related
activities in DOE and DOD. The subcommittee also held a
classified briefing on June 26, 2014 on Russia's strategic
forces programs in which members received the latest
intelligence information on Russia's nuclear weapons and
missile operations and modernization programs. On July 15,
2014, the subcommittee supported a classified for the full
committee on the nuclear weapons capabilities and programs of
foreign nations.
On July 17, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held
a hearing with nongovernmental expert witnesses to explore and
discuss ``Russian Violations of the Intermediate-range Nuclear
Forces Treaty: After detection--what?'' The subcommittee held a
follow-on classified briefing on this same topic, but with
government witnesses, on September 17, 2014. On September 18,
2014, the subcommittee received a classified briefing from the
directors of the Nation's nuclear weapons laboratories and the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command on their annual assessments
of the health of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. On
November 18, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a
closed briefing to discuss the ongoing nuclear negotiations
with the Islamic Republic of Iran and explore the implications
of providing Iran relief from sanctions. On December 4, 2014,
the subcommittee held a classified briefing on strategic
capabilities in foreign countries and foreign efforts to gain
technological superiority over U.S. military forces.
Finally, on December 10, 2014, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces held both an open hearing and a classified
briefing, together with the Committee on Foreign Affairs'
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade on
``Russian Arms Control Cheating and the Administration's
Responses.'' These two oversight events allowed Members to
explore, in detail and all levels of classification, all
aspects of Russia's violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty and the Administration's subsequent actions and
plans.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
includes several provisions related to nuclear forces and the
nuclear security enterprise. These include provisions that
would: require that all existing intercontinental ballistic
missile silos be kept in a ``warm'' status that enables them to
be made fully operational in the future; ensure delays in
development and production of the long-range standoff weapon
are minimized; strengthen congressional oversight of nuclear
infrastructure modernization projects; require demonstration of
a responsive plutonium pit production capability by certain
dates in the 2020s; create an Advisory Board on Toxic
Substances and Worker Health; require regular cost estimates by
the Congressional Budget Office on the cost of operating,
sustaining, and modernizing the nuclear deterrent; and,
authorize a program for the design and use of prototypes of
nuclear weapons to further intelligence estimates with respect
to foreign nuclear weapons activities.
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, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on May 8, 2013,
regarding the ``Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request for Missile Defense Program.'' In addition to
the hearing, the subcommittee 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, directs 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 increases funding for the development of a new kill
vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program as well
as provides 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.
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 25,
2014, regarding the ``Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs.'' In
addition to the hearing on the President's budget request, the
subcommittee held a hearing on July 23, 2014 on ``Adapting U.S.
Missile Defense for Future Threats: Russia, China and
Modernizing the NMD Act.''
Further, the subcommittee held numerous classified
briefings concerning U.S. missile defenses: January 15, 2014,
on ``Cruise Missile Threats to the United States and Homeland
Defense Options and Plans''; February 11, 2014, a briefing on
``Pakistan: Strategic Forces Developments''; July 9, 2014, a
briefing with Missile Defense Agency Director Vice Admiral
James Syring, USN, on ``Missile Defense Classified Programs'';
November 18, 2014, a briefing on ``Iran and Implications of
Sanctions Relief''; and, December 4, 2014, a briefing on
``Implications to United States Strategic Capabilities of
Foreign Capability Development.''
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
direct important oversight on homeland and regional missile
defense programs, Israeli cooperative missile defense programs,
as well as the Israeli Iron Dome program and requirements for
U.S.-based coproduction with U.S. industry. H.R. 3979 includes
funding for the development of a redesigned kill vehicle for
the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program, as well as
increased funding for the reliability and maintenance of that
system. Further, it requires a plan for the robust acquisition
of the redesigned kill vehicle, as well as requirements to
increase the reliability of future missile defense programs.
National Security Space
In the first session of the 113th Congress, the committee
continued its oversight of the Department of Defense'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 April 25, 2013, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2014 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 on Strategic Forces 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.
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.
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the committee
continued its oversight of the Department's national security
space programs.
On January 9, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
received a briefing from the National Intelligence Officer for
Science and Technology, and the Director of the Department of
Defense Space Security and Defense Program regarding directed
energy threats and foreign counterspace activity. Following
this briefing, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces on the People's Republic of China's counterspace program
and the implications for U.S. national security. The witnesses
were non-governmental experts. These subcommittee events led up
to a counterspace briefing on February 6, 2014, with the full
committee, with briefers from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Air Force, and the Joint Staff.
On April 3, 2014, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held
a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space
Activities. The witnesses were the Commander of Air Force Space
Command, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, and the
Commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Space
in the U.S Strategic Command. The members' oversight questions
addressed a variety of topics including space launch,
acquisition of commercial space services, space situational
awareness, threats to national security space systems, among
other pertinent topics.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, would
direct several national security space-related policy
provisions, funding recommendations, and reporting requirements
to include $220.0 million for the development of a next
generation rocket propulsion system to transition from the use
of non-allied space launch engines to a domestic alternative
for national security space launches and several provisions
related to space security and defense.
Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also
participated in several congressional delegations to oversee
the national security space program. The members traveled to
two National Reconnaissance Office ground stations, the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, the Army
Space and Missile Defense Command headquarters, Vandenberg Air
Force Base, Buckley Air Force Base, the Air Force Space and
Missiles System Center, and several industry facilities.
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 that will address low-end
threats as well as nation-state peer competitors. 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 briefings 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; a hearing on
``Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for Department of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology
Programs'' on April 16, 2013; a hearing on Biodefense:
Worldwide Threats and Countermeasure Efforts for the Department
of Defense on October 11, 2013; a briefing on Non-Lethal
Weapons Systems Policy and Programs on February 28, 2014; a
hearing on Department of Defense (DOD) Fiscal Year 2015 Science
and Technology Programs: Pursuing Technology Superiority in a
Changing Security Environment on March 26, 2014; and a hearing
on Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program:
Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction in a Changing Global
Environment on April 8, 2014.
The committee incorporated several legislative provisions
related to science and technology in H.R. 1960, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by
the House, to include: extension of authority to award prizes
for advanced technology achievements; extension of a 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 a 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.
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included several
legislative provisions related to science and technology,
including: revision of the service requirement for the Science,
Mathematics and Research for Transformation (SMART) program;
revision of the requirement for acquisition programs to
maintain defense research facility records; modifications to
the cost-sharing requirement for defense exportability features
program; extension of the contract authority for advanced
capability development; amendments to the authority for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to carry out
certain prototype projects; establishment of a government-wide
authority for commercialization of basic research through the
Small Business Technology Transfer program; additions to the
list of science and technology reinvention labs; and permanent
authority for the experimental hiring authority for scientific
and technical personnel.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included several directives
related to science and technology, including: a briefing on the
rationale and impact on the decision to cease reimbursable work
for Federal agencies outside of the Navy; a briefing on the
Department's technical capabilities to experimentally study
military relevant High Reynolds Number turbulent boundary
layers; a requirement to issue updated policy guidance related
to the use of non-profit research institutions that clarifies
their role in the research ecosystem; an assessment of the
organization, missions, authorities, and health of the defense
research and development enterprise; a briefing on the measures
and metrics used by the Department to better understand how the
Department is fulfilling the guidance related to historically
black colleges and universities; a briefing on the status of
the associated Spectrum Roadmap and Action Plan, as well as a
science and technology roadmap for technologies that are needed
to improve spectrum efficiency; and a briefing on the
coordination between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Health and Human Services through the Public
Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE).
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
included several legislative provisions related to science and
technology, including: modification of the authority to offer
prizes for advanced technology achievements; modifications to
the manufacturing technology program; modifications to the
reporting for the deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Systems Engineering; revision of the service requirement for
the SMART program; revision of the requirement for acquisition
programs to maintain defense research facility records;
modifications to the cost-sharing requirement for defense
exportability features program; extension of the contract
authority for advanced capability development; amendments to
the authority for DARPA to carry out certain prototype
projects; establishment of a pilot program for DARPA to assign
private sector personnel as program managers; establishment of
a pilot program to enhance preparation of military dependent
children for careers in scientific fields; modifications to the
pilot program for proof of concept commercialization centers;
additions to the list of science and technology reinvention
labs; and permanent authority for the experimental hiring
authority for scientific and technical personnel.
Cyber Operations Capabilities
Cyber operations have taken on an increasingly important
role in military operations as well as national security.
Accordingly, the committee continued to closely examine the
Department of Defense'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 committee and the
Subcommittee on Intelligence, 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 oversee 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 and the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted several hearings
and briefings within this area, including: a hearing on
``Information Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization
and Policy Issues to Support the Future Force'' on March 13,
2013; cyber operations briefings on March 20, 2013, December 4,
2013, and December 3, 2014; and, a hearing on Information
Technology and Cyber Operations: Modernization and Policy
Issues in a Changing National Security Environment on March 12,
2014.
The committee included several legislative provisions
related to cyber operations capabilities in H.R. 1960, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 U.S. Cyber Command.
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House,
included several legislative provisions related to cyber
operations, including: establishment of an executive agent for
cyber test and training ranges; promotion of an outreach and
education program to assist small businesses in understanding
and responding to cyber threats; notification by the Secretary
of Defense or Director of National Intelligence when a company
suspected of being influenced by a foreign country is competing
for, or has been awarded, a contract affecting certain covered
networks; a sense of Congress on the role of the National Guard
in defending against cyber attacks; a certification by the
Director of National Intelligence related to the activities of
certain cyber operations capabilities needs; and a briefing on
the ten National Guard cyber protection teams being created in
this fiscal year.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included several directives
related to cyber operations, including: an analysis and
briefing on the Department's strategy for utilizing field
programmable gate-arrays in the Department's microelectronics
strategy; a report by the Comptroller General of the United
States reviewing the Department's program related to trusted
foundry, trusted suppliers, and other supply chain risk
management activities; a briefing assessing the approaches
currently taken to mitigate counterfeit parts in the supply
system; a report on the Air Force investment in cyber; a report
by the Comptroller General of the United States on the
organization, missions, and authorities of U.S. Cyber Command
and its operational relationship with the geographic combatant
commands; a report by the Comptroller General of the United
States evaluating the Department's efforts at protecting
against insider threats; and a plan for improving cyber
situational awareness tools.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
included several legislative provisions related to cyber
operations, including: establishment of an executive agent for
cyber test and another for cyber training ranges; a sense of
Congress on the role of the reserve components in defending
against cyber attacks; notification when the Secretary of
Defense determines there is a national security threat against
an information technology or telecommunications network that
might cause a risk to Department of Defense operations or
programs; require designation of a network to conduct a pilot
program for cyberspace mapping; submit a review of cross domain
solution policy and strategy; establish a major force program
for the budgeting and accounting of resources supporting cyber
mission forces; a strategy to develop and deploy decryption
services for the Joint Information Environment; reporting on
penetrations into networks of operationally critical
contractors; a plan for education of members of the Armed
Forces on cyber matters; and establishment of a regime to
identify and potentially sanction entities determined to be
conducting economic or industrial espionage in cyberspace.
In addition, in the Joint Explanatory Statement
accompanying H.R. 3979, includes directives that would require:
a briefing on the ten National Guard cyber protection teams
being created in the current fiscal year and an assessment by
the Comptroller General of the United States of the cyber
threat outreach and education activities of the Department of
Defense.
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, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014, 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 and Briefings
During the second session of the 113th Congress, the
committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in
preparation for the fiscal year 2015 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 March 6, 2014, 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 2015.
In addition to this hearing, the committee held budget
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of
the military departments. On March 12, 2014, the committee
convened a hearing to receive testimony from the Honorable Ray
Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief
of Naval Operations; and General James F. Amos, Commandant,
U.S. Marine Corps, on the United States Navy and Marine Corps'
portion of the fiscal year 2015 budget request. On March 14,
2014, the Honorable Deborah Lee James, 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
U.S. Air Force's portion of the fiscal year 2015 budget
request. On March 25, 2014, 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 U.S. 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 and posture in
their respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began
with testimony from General Charles H. Jacoby, Jr., Commander
of U.S. Northern Command; and General John F. Kelly, Commander
of U.S. Southern Command, on February 26, 2014. This hearing
was followed on March 5, 2014, by Admiral Samuel J. Locklear,
Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; General Lloyd J. Austin III,
Commander of U.S. Central Command; and General David M.
Rodriguez, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, who testified on
their commands' posture and budget requests for fiscal year
2015. On April 2, 2014, the committee received testimony from
Admiral Cecil D. Haney, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command;
and General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, Commander of U.S. Forces
Korea. General Philip M. Breedlove, Commander of U.S European
Command, did not testify before the committee on the posture
and budget request for U.S. European Command due to a request
by the Administration that he remain in Europe amidst
aggressive actions by Russia in Europe, to specifically include
its illegal annexation of Crimea. The committee also convened
on March 13, 2014, to receive testimony from General Joseph
Dunford, Commander of the International Security and Assistance
Force (ISAF) mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on
recent developments in Afghanistan.
This year, the committee also convened a hearing to receive
testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense
priorities for the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015, which took place on April 9, 2014.
The Department of Defense had not submitted its fiscal year
2015 budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
at the time the committee marked up the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 on May 7, 2014. Upon
receiving the fiscal year 2015 OCO request in late June 2014,
the committee held a hearing on the request with the Honorable
Robert O. Work, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Admiral James A.
``Sandy'' Winnefeld, Jr., Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff;
and the Honorable Michael J. McCord, Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), on July 16, 2014.
As events transpired in the Middle East, specifically
relating to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) in the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab
Republic, the committee met several times to conduct oversight
hearings and briefings on the threat and the Administration's
policy and strategy to defeat ISIL. These included classified
briefings on the security situation in Iraq on June 18, 2014,
June 26, 2014, and July 9, 2014, with senior defense and
intelligence community officials, and hearings on the strategy
and campaign against ISIL with the Honorable Chuck Hagel,
Secretary of Defense, on September 18, 2014, and the Secretary
of Defense and General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, on November 13, 2014. The committee also
received inputs from outside experts in a hearing on July 29,
2014, and a roundtable discussion on September 17, 2014.
Finally, to develop its understanding of the Syria train and
equip authority requested by the President in September 2014,
the committee held a classified briefing with officials from
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of State on
September 16, 2014, and a classified intelligence-operations
briefing on November 19, 2014.
Additionally, the committee held a series of hearings and
briefings in accordance with its legislative and oversight
roles focused on the United States' ongoing military operations
and related strategies beyond Iraq and Syria. Relating to the
U.S. mission in Afghanistan, the committee held a classified
intelligence-operations briefing on Afghanistan and Pakistan on
January 14, 2014; a hearing with outside experts on ``Risks to
Stability in Afghanistan: Politics, Security, and International
Commitment'' on July 30, 2014; and a classified briefing on the
situation in Afghanistan, including developments relating to
post-2014 authorities, on December 10, 2014. The committee also
examined the legal authorities for military operations against
Al Qaeda in a classified briefing on June 25, 2014, and a
hearing on the ``State of Al-Qaeda, its Affiliates, and
Associated Groups'' with outside experts on February 4, 2014.
Remaining mindful of emerging and evolving security
challenges around the globe, the committee also held several
hearings and briefings related to developments in the broader
Middle East, Europe and Russia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific,
as well as the Department's release of its 2014 Quadrennial
Defense Review and its defense strategy contained therein. The
committee has also continued to oversee developments ranging
from the transfers of detainees to third countries, to those
relating to the committee's ongoing defense reform initiative.
Many of these oversight events are noted elsewhere in this
report. Of particular note, the committee closely monitored
developments relating to the Joint Plan of Action regarding
Iran's nuclear program and held a hearing with outside experts
on the ``P5+1 Negotiations over Iran's Nuclear Program and Its
Implications for United States Defense'' on June 19, 2014. The
committee also held several classified briefings on the
security situation in eastern Europe, specifically the Ukraine,
and a hearing on ``Russian Military Developments and Strategic
Implications'' with senior defense officials on April 8, 2014.
Lastly, the committee has also continued to oversee DOD
activities and funding relating to the Ebola virus outbreak in
West Africa, including convening a closed briefing with
representatives from the Department of Defense and the
interagency on November 18, 2014, as it works to ensure the DOD
mission remains scoped to its unique capabilities and
Department of Defense personnel are adequately equipped and
protected.
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 3 years, the
level of funding requested for defense has seen significant
decline. In fiscal year 2013, defense spending would decrease
by 17 percent under sequestration when compared with the level
projected for fiscal year 2013 in the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP) that was submitted in February 2010. Even prior
to sequestration, defense spending had already been reduced by
9 percent from the plan submitted just 2 years earlier.
The committee noted that 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.
On March 25, 2014, 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 2015 to the Committee on the Budget. The President's
fiscal year 2015 budget requested $521.3 billion in
discretionary budget authority for national defense. Of this
total, $495.6 billion is for the Department of Defense, $18.0
billion is for the Department of Energy's defense activities,
and $7.7 billion is for other defense-related activities. The
President's budget also includes $8.2 billion in mandatory
budget authority. The budget submission complies with the
limitations mandated by Public Law 112-25, as amended by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA) for funding levels in
fiscal year 2015.
In addition to the base budget request, as required by
section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the President's
budget for fiscal year 2015 included a separate request of
$79.4 billion for war-related expenditures in support of
ongoing military operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, forward presence in other critical areas, and the
resetting of equipment, presented again this fiscal year as
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). However, details of this
request will be delayed. The Department of Defense has stated
that justification materials will be available 2-3 months after
the post-2014 strategy in Afghanistan is determined.
The Department of Defense's $495.6 billion base budget for
fiscal year 2015 is presented as ``repositioning the military
for the new strategic challenges and opportunities that will
define our future: new technologies, new centers of power, and
a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and
in some instances more threatening to the United States'' . In
the aggregate, the Department's budget submission for fiscal
year 2015 is equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 appropriation,
$31.0 billion below the fiscal year 2014 budget request, and
$45.2 billion or 8.4 percent below the fiscal year 2015
estimate presented in last year's FYDP.
The committee discussed that over the last 4 years, the
committee has seen the level of funding requested and
appropriated for national defense decline. Under sequestration,
national defense spending would decrease over 19 percent in
fiscal year 2015, when compared with the level projected for
fiscal year 2015 in the FYDP included in the first budget
request prepared by President Obama's administration, submitted
in February 2010.
The committee noted its concern with the current trend of
funding for defense spending. Over the prior 3 years, base
defense spending has been essentially flat, which has caused a
loss of buying power within the Department as inflationary
influences take effect across multiple years. If this trend
continued, defense spending will be at sequestration levels in
fiscal year 2016, and will be below sequestration levels
beginning in fiscal year 2017. The committee supported a path
to restoring national defense to pre-sequestration levels for
fiscal year 2016 onward, urging support for adequate funding
for national defense associated with the 2012 defense strategy.
The committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in
his views and estimates. Instead, the ranking member was joined
by ten other members of the committee in submitting alternative
views and estimates that expressed support for the President's
fiscal year 2015 budget request, because it offered the
Congress a solid basis for cost-effective planning and
decision-making and because it supported current and future
military requirements. The alternative views and estimates
letter voiced the ranking member's call to eliminate the threat
of sequestration to: dispel economic uncertainty, empower
economic recovery, enable the passage of appropriations
legislation 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 once again encouraged 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 re-asserted that deficit-
reduction goals cannot be effectuated through cuts alone. The
solution must include increased revenues and changes in
mandatory spending. The ranking member stated that Congress
must establish a manageable, long-term, discretionary spending
plan that advances national interests on a broad front.
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, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as passed by the House,
and H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66). 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 Department of Defense elements part
of the intelligence community. In addition, H.R. 1960, as
passed by the House, and H.R. 3304 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
Department of Defense 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.
In addition, H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
included several other provisions within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction, including: a section that would modify the
current oversight requirements for the undersea mobility
acquisition program of U.S. Special Operations Command, and
require the Secretary of the Navy to review a transition plan
for the undersea mobility capabilities developed by the
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command; a section that
would modify the reporting requirements and definitions
contained in section 407 of title 10, United States Code,
regarding humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled
conventional munitions assistance and expand this definition to
include man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS); a section
that would prohibit U.S. Special Operations Command from
obligating any funds available for fiscal year 2015 for the
Aviation Foreign Internal Defense Program until the Secretary
of Defense provides a certification to the congressional
defense committees that validates program requirements; and a
provision requiring the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, to submit to Congress an annual
report on human rights vetting and verification procedures of
the Department of Defense; would require the Secretary of
Defense, through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, to conduct a
review of Department of Defense efforts regarding suicide
prevention among members of the Special Operations Forces and
their dependents; and a provision that directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an outside review and assessment of the
Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) program and
suicide prevention programs for U.S. Special Operations Forces
and U.S. Special Operations Command.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, the committee included: a directive
requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide a copy of the
Analysis of Alternatives report in its entirety and a briefing
on undersea clandestine insertion mission of U.S. Special
Operations Forces; language directing the Secretary of Defense
to improve coordination for and to provide a briefing on the
Tactical Assault Light Operator Suits (TALOS) project for U.S.
Special Operations Forces; and a directive requiring the
Secretary of Defense to brief the committee on proposed
transfer of the United States Naval Ship Sumner from Military
Sealift Command to U.S. Special Operations Command.
H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
included: a section that would modify the current oversight
requirements for the undersea mobility acquisition program of
U.S. Special Operations Command, and require the Secretary of
the Navy to review a transition plan for the undersea mobility
capabilities developed by the Commander, U.S. Special
Operations Command; a section that would modify the reporting
requirements and definitions contained in section 407 of title
10, United States Code, regarding humanitarian demining
assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions assistance and
expand this definition to include man-portable air defense
systems (MANPADS); a section that would prohibit U.S. Special
Operations Command from obligating any funds available for
fiscal year 2015 for the Aviation Foreign Internal Defense
Program until the Secretary of Defense provides a certification
to the congressional defense committees that validates program
requirements; and a provision requiring the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit
to Congress an annual report on human rights vetting and
verification procedures of the Department of Defense; and a
provision requiring a comprehensive review and assessment of
the Preservation of the Force and Families (POTFF) program and
suicide prevention programs for U.S. Special Operations Forces
and U.S. Special Operations Command; a provision that would
limit the transfer of MC-12 aircraft to U.S. Special Operations
Command and direct a review and assessment of requirements; an
extension of authority related to Department of Defense
facilities for intelligence collection or special operations
activities abroad; and rapid acquisition procedures for U.S.
Special Operations Command.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Transition Assistance
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel 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
subcommittee held several meetings with the Department of
Defense and the military services to monitor their
implementation plans. The subcommittee held a hearing on April
24, 2013, entitled ``Status of Implementation of the
Requirements of the Veterans Opportunity to Work 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 subcommittee 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.
During the second session of the 113th Congress, the
committee continued to address the needs of service members
transitioning from the military. H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015, would direct the Secretary of Defense to
enhance the higher education component of the Transition
Assistance Program (TAP) of the Department by providing more
complete and accurate information regarding post-secondary
education to individuals who apply for educational assistance
to pursue a program of education at an institution of higher
learning. In addition, H.R. 3979 would direct the Secretary of
Defense to provide information in electronic format, such as
military service and separation data and contact information,
to State veterans agencies to facilitate the transition of
service members to civilian life.
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
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 roll out 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 member's individual expression of those
beliefs. The provision amended section 533 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) and would expand the accommodation and prohibition against
adverse personnel action based on a member's 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.
H.R. 4435, the Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House,
contained a provision that would protect the religious freedom
of military chaplains to close a prayer outside of a religious
service according to the traditions, expressions and religious
exercises of their endorsing faith group.
On January 29, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
met to receive testimony from the Department of Defense on
religious accommodation in the Armed Services, and on November
19, 2014, the subcommittee also met to receive testimony from
outside advocacy organizations on religious accommodations in
the Armed Services.
Toxic Leadership
The committee became concerned about toxic leadership among
high-ranking officers in the military services after what
appeared to be an increase in press reports of investigations
of senior officers for behaviors that included toxic leadership
practices. On July 24, 2014, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel met to receive a briefing on the Department of
Defense and military services efforts to reduce toxic
leadership.
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 committee 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 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 subcommittee 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
Subcommittees on Readiness and Seapower and Projection Forces
held a joint hearing on ``Ensuring Navy Surface Force
Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources,''
specifically how operational demands and sequestration affect
the Navy's ability to conduct the 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 regard 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 received pay and
allowances in spite of the United States Government shutdown of
2013.
The committee met on March 27, 2014, to receive testimony
on ``Operation and Maintenance without OCO Funds,'' in order to
understand when the reset and enduring requirements for funds
that traditionally came from OCO would return to the base O&M
accounts. On April 10, 2014, the committee received testimony
on ``The Department of Defense's Readiness Posture.''
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 requests for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
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 1, 2013, Ensuring Navy
Surface Force Effectiveness with Limited Maintenance Resources.
Additional hearings were: January 14, 2014, People's
Republic of China Maritime Disputes; January 28, 2014, Hearing
on the People's Republic of China's Counterspace Program and
the Implications for U.S. National Security; February 27, 2014,
Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities to Support the Asia
Pacific Rebalance; March 12, 2014, Independent Assessments of
the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection
Forces; March 26, 2014, Independent Assessments of the Fiscal
Year 2015 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces;
April 2, 2014, Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs
and Capabilities related to the 2015 President's Budget
Request; July 10, 2014, Cruiser and Destroyer Modernization and
Large Surface Combatant Force Structure Assessment; July 16,
2014, Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike (UCLASS) Requirements Assessment; July 25, 2014,
Amphibious Fleet Requirements; July 30, 2014, Logistics and
Sealift Force Requirements and Force Structure Assessment; and
December 2, 2014, the Role of Maritime and Air Power in DOD's
Third Offset Strategy.
In addition to 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; February 4,
2014, Air Force and Naval Aircraft of the People's Republic of
China Liberation Army: Order of Battle and Capabilities; and
June 10, 2014, Integration of Advanced Weapons on Large Surface
Combatants.
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.
The subcommittee also 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
the President'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 September 10, 2013, the subcommittee met to
receive a classified briefing on the annual assessments of the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. On September 18, 2013, the
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on military
requirements for conventional prompt global strike capability.
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held three hearings
regarding the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request. On
March 25, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on the Fiscal
Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for
Missile Defense Programs. On April 3, 2014, the subcommittee
held a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space
Activities. On April 8, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing
on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for Atomic Energy
Defense Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs.
In addition to oversight of the President's fiscal year
2015 budget request, the subcommittee held several oversight
hearings. On March 26, 2014, the subcommittee held a hearing on
the ``Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on the Governance of
the Nuclear Security Enterprise.'' On July 17, 2014, the
subcommittee held a hearing on ``Russian Violations of the INF
Treaty: After Detection--What?'' On July 23, 2014, the
subcommittee held a hearing on ``Adapting U.S. Missile Defense
for Future Threats: Russia, China and Modernizing the NMD
Act.'' And, on December 10, 2014, the subcommittee held a
hearing on ``Russian Arms Control Cheating and the
Administration's Responses.''
Further, the subcommittee held numerous briefings with the
Administration as part of its oversight of strategic forces
programs and related policy matters: on January 15, 2014, a
briefing on ``Cruise Missile Threats to the United States and
Homeland Defense Options and Plans''; on February 11, 2014, a
briefing on ``Pakistan: Strategic Forces Developments''; an
``Arms Control Compliance Briefing'' on March 5, 2014; on June
26, 2014, a briefing on ``Russian Strategic Forces Programs'';
on July 9, 2014, a briefing on ``Missile Defense Classified
Programs''; a September 17, 2014 briefing on ``Russian Arms
Control Violations: National Security in the Face of Russian
Violation of the INF Treaty and Other Violations''; on
September 18, 2014, a briefing on the ``Report on Stockpile
Assessments--The Health of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile''; on November 18, 2014, a briefing on ``Iran and
Implications of Sanctions Relief''; and, on December 4, 2014, a
briefing on ``Implications to United States Strategic
Capabilities of Foreign Capability Development.''
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; rotorcraft; individual equipment to
include tactical networks and radios; counter improvised
explosive device (IED) equipment; intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance platforms to include unmanned aerial
systems, and associated support equipment, including National
Guard and Reserve equipment programs. The Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces also provided oversight on policy,
such as threats and force structure requirements, as
appropriate within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This would
include current or future acquisition programs that relate to
gaps in the capabilities required to execute current national
military strategies, as well as the allocation of acquisition
resources. This would also include military service specific
acquisition policies as long as there is a nexus to the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces also raised concerns over the impact of
sequestration on acquisition programs, in particular the
impacts to all levels of 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; April 26, 2013: Fiscal Year 2014 Army Modernization
Programs; April 4, 2014: Fiscal Year 2015 Navy, Marine Corps,
Air Force Combat Aviation Programs; April 2, 2014: Fiscal Year
2015 Ground Modernization Programs.
In addition to hearings, the subcommittee held various
briefings and events to conduct oversight including 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; October 9, 2013: Program Updates on Army
and Marine Corps Body Armor, Combat Helmets, and Small Arms
Programs; March 5, 2014: Update on Current and Future Counter-
IED Initiatives and the Joint IED Defeat Organization's
Perspective on the recent DOD Report relating to an NSA
contractor; March 13, 2014: Air Force Analysis to Support the
Fiscal Year 2015 President's Budget; and July 16, 2014:
Department of Defense Munitions--Issues and Challenges.
The subcommittee also held unclassified briefings on
February 14, 2013: Joint Strike Fighter 101; January 14, 2014:
Army Total Force Structure; February 26, 2014: Tactical Air and
Land Defense Industrial Base--Challenges and Opportunities;
March 27, 2014: Department of Defense Munitions--Issues and
Challenges; April 4, 2014: Tactical Air and Land Defense
Industrial Base--Challenges and Opportunities; and July 30,
2014: The Army's Tactical Network: Issues and Challenges.
Lastly, the subcommittee met informally to gather
information on the following topics: February 13, 2013:
Adversary Fifth Generation Threats and the Value of Stealth;
March 12, 2013: Acquisition 101 by the Government
Accountability Office; and February 5, 2014: NATO 101: Issues
and Challenges for NATO Tactical Air and Land Forces.
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, and on May 7, 2014 that was included in H.R. 1960,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, as
passed by the House, and H.R. 4435, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as passed by the House,
respectively. The legislation in both bills 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 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.
Similar to the legislative efforts in H.R. 3304, H.R. 3979, the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, authorized an
additional $1.25 billion for National Guard and Reserve
Component equipment modernization, based on the recommendation
from the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
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.
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.
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.
Quadrennial Defense Review
On February 26, 2013, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to receive information about the
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 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.
On March 5, 2014, the subcommittee conducted a closed
briefing with former U.S. Government expert witnesses to
receive information about their perspectives on the planning,
execution, findings and recommendations of the 2014 QDR which
had been conducted by the Department of Defense. The committee
received recommendations from these outside experts on the
issues that should be considered inherent to the committee's
oversight of the planning, programming, budgeting, and
execution (PPBE) of the Department related to the national
defense strategy. Briefing witnesses were: Ms. Michele
Flournoy, Senior Advisor at The Boston Consulting Group; U.S.
Marine Corps General (ret.) James M. Mattis, Visiting Fellow at
the Hoover Institution; and, Dr. Catherine Dale, Specialist in
International Security at the Congressional Research Service.
This work supplemented other activities at the full
committee.
Department of Defense Section 1033 Surplus Property Program in Support
of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies
On November 13, 2014, the subcommittee conducted a hearing
with Department of Defense and outside expert witnesses titled,
``The Department of Defense Excess Property Program in Support
of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies: An Overview of Department of
Defense Authorities, Roles, Responsibilities, and
Implementation of Section 1033 of the 1997 National Defense
Authorization Act.'' The purpose of the hearing was to receive
testimony about the administration, oversight, and
accountability mechanisms for the Department of Defense program
that provides excess property to selected state and local law
enforcement agencies. The committee received testimony from two
panels. Panel one was comprised of Vice Admiral Mark D.
Harnitchek, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and
Mr. Alan F. Estevez, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense, Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics. Panel two was
comprised of Mr. Jim Bueermann, President, Police Foundation,
and Mr. Mark Lomax, Executive Director, National Tactical
Officers Association.
Personnel Security Clearance Process Reform Efforts
In July 2014, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon directed
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to report to
the vice chairman of the committee about the security clearance
background investigation and adjudication processes as they
apply to the Department of Defense, as part of the committee's
broader reform effort. Specifically, the subcommittee was
tasked to summarize the various governmental and non-
governmental assessments of the existing process, review
internal and external proposals for improving the process,
evaluate the effectiveness of these various reforms planned or
underway and to suggest which, if any, of these proposals the
committee should consider further.
In conducting this study, staff reviewed hundreds of pages
of documents including governmental and non-governmental
reports, analyses, and assessments of existing processes and
internal and external proposals for improvements. Subcommittee
staff also reviewed and analyzed applicable Executive Orders,
Department of Defense directives, and details of planned
efforts to address reform of the security clearance process. In
addition, committee staff met with and was briefed by
representatives from the Department.
The subcommittee's staff report summarized the ongoing
efforts of the Department to improve the re-investigation and
adjudication process. This includes, among other steps,
exploring the potential for automated continuous evaluation and
the considering reducing the number of individuals with access
to classified information. In addition, the study noted that
the Department had various reports set for completion in coming
months that may provide a clearer picture of future plans for
improving the process as they apply to the Department of
Defense.
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund
On June 24, 2014, the subcommittee conducted a hearing
with Government and outside witnesses titled ``Filipino
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund: Examining the Department of
Defense and Interagency Process for Verifying Eligibility.''
The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony about the
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, including how it
had performed to date, how the eligibility verification process
had operated, and how it had changed over time.
The committee received testimony from two panels. Panel one
was comprised of: Brigadier General David K. ``Mac'' MacEwan,
the 59th Adjutant General of the U.S. Army; Mr. Brad Flohr,
Senior Advisor for Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and, Mr.
Scott Levins, Director of the National Personnel Records
Center, National Archives and Records Administration. Panel two
was comprised of: Mr. Celesdino Almeda, Filipino Veterans
Equity Compensation Fund Claimant; Mr. Jesse Baltazar, Filipino
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund Claimant; and, Mr. Eric
Lachica, Executive Director, American Coalition for Filipino
Veterans, Inc.
Taliban Five Transfer
On July 17, 2014, Chairman McKeon directed the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations to conduct an investigation of
the rationale for the May 2014 transfer of five Taliban
detainees from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO),
the process by which the transfer decision was made, the
national security implications of the transfer, and related
topics. The subcommittee has since conducted bipartisan
transcribed interviews of nine senior Department officials
involved in or knowledgeable of the transfer and related
events. The subcommittee also received 2,750 pages of
classified and unclassified documents from the Department of
Defense and other agencies, conducted a staff oversight trip to
Qatar, and facilitated a Congressional Delegation to GTMO.
Although Chairman McKeon intended for the investigation to be
completed by December 9, 2014, he subsequently extended the
subcommittee's inquiry to allow time for additional materials
to be gathered and assessed.
Department of Defense Response to the Attack on the Diplomatic
Facilities in Benghazi, Libya
In February 2014, the committee released a majority interim
report entitled ``Benghazi Investigation Update,'' expressing
the views of Chairman McKeon, Vice Chairman Mac Thornberry,
Rep. Martha Roby (who was the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations until December 2013), and the five
majority members of that subcommittee. The report assessed the
Department of Defense's response to the attack, preparations
the U.S. military made for the possibility of an attack, and
the arrangements that were subsequently put into place to
minimize the possibility of a similar recurrence. The report
highlighted six findings.
The February report also identified several topics for
further investigation. Accordingly, Chairman McKeon directed
staff to conduct nine classified transcribed interviews with
military officers who were in Libya during the attack or were
involved in assessing events and shaping the military's
response. These interviews were conducted in conjunction with
staff from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Committee staff interviewed individuals at every level of
command: an Army lieutenant colonel who was the Director of
Current Operations at Special Operations Command-Africa
(SOCAFRICA); in addition to Lieutenant Colonel S.E. Gibson,
Team Libya, Embassy Tripoli; Lieutenant Colonel Keith Phillips,
Defense Attachee, Embassy Tripoli; Lieutenant Colonel Greg
Arndt, Director of the Office of Security Cooperation, Embassy
Tripoli; Colonel George Bristol, Commander of Joint Task Force-
Trans Sahara; Rear Admiral Brian Losey, Commander, SOCAFRICA;
Brigadier General Scott Zobrist, commander, 31st Fighter Wing,
Aviano Air Base, Italy; Rear Admiral Richard Landolt, Deputy
Commander for Operations, United States Africa Command
(AFRICOM); Vice Admiral Charles Leidig, Deputy Commander,
AFRICOM; and General Carter Ham, Commander, AFRICOM. In sum,
these interviews comprised over 30 hours and 1100 pages of
transcripts. Unclassified redacted versions of these
transcripts were later released to the public.
Pursuant to requirements of the House of Representatives,
committee records and materials held in connection with this
investigation were transmitted to the Select Committee on the
Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi,
Libya, established on May 8, 2014, pursuant to H. Res. 567.
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.
113-309.......... December 27, 2013.... N/A.......... First Annual
Report on the
Activities of
the Committee
on Armed
Services for
the 113th
Congress.
113-446.......... May 13, 2014......... H.R. 4435.... Howard P.
``Buck''
McKeon
National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2015.
113-446 Part 2... May 19, 2014......... H.R. 4435.... Howard P.
``Buck''
McKeon
National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2015.
113-547.......... July 22, 2014........ H. Res. 649.. Directing the
Secretary of
Defense to
transmit to
the House of
Representative
s copies of
any emails in
the possession
of the
Department of
Defense or the
National
Security
Agency that
were
transmitted to
or from the
email
account(s) of
former
Internal
Revenue
Service Exempt
Organizations
Division
Director Lois
Lerner between
January 2009
and April
2011.
113-569.......... July 31, 2014........ H. Res. 644.. Condemning and
disapproving
of the Obama
administration
's failure to
comply with
the lawful
statutory
requirement to
notify
Congress
before
releasing
individuals
detained at
United States
Naval Station,
Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, and
expressing
national
security
concerns over
the release of
five Taliban
leaders and
the
repercussions
of negotiating
with
terrorists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Committee Print No. 2--National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014. Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory
Statement to accompany H.R. 3304 (Public Law 113-66). December
2013.
Committee Print No. 3--A Ceremony Unveiling the Portrait of
the Honorable Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon. September 18, 2014.
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. 113-43--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--National Defense Priorities
from Members for the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act. May 8, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-44--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Missile Defense Programs. May 8, 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. 113-47--Full Committee hearing on DOD and VA
Collaboration to Assist Servicemembers Returning to Civilian
Life (joint with House Committee on Veterans' Affairs). July
10, 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. 113-49--Full Committee hearing on Rebalancing to
the Asia-Pacific Region and Implications for U.S. National
Security. July 24, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-50--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Women in Service Reviews. July 24, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-51--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Acquisition and Development Challenges
Associated with the Littoral Combat Ship. July 25, 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. 113-53--Full Committee hearing on Initial
Conclusions Formed by the Defense Strategic Choices and
Management Review. 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. 113-55--Full Committee hearing on Proposed
Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria. Sept. 10, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-56--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Undersea Warfare Capabilities and Challenges.
Sept. 12, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-57--Full Committee hearing on Planning for
Sequestration in Fiscal Year 2014 and Perspectives of the
Military Services on the Strategic Choices and Management
Review. Sept. 18, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-58--Full Committee hearing on The U.S.
Presence in Afghanistan Post-2014: Views of Outside Experts.
Sept. 19, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-59--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on The Defense Department's Posture for
September 11, 2013: What are the Lessons of Benghazi? Sept. 19,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-60--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Resetting the Force for the Future: Risks of Sequestration.
Oct. 2, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-61--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The
Interpretation of H.R. 3210: Pay Our Military Act. Oct. 10,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-62--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Department of Defense Development and
Integration of Air-Sea Battle Strategy, Governance and Policy
into the Services' Annual Program, Planning, Budgeting and
Execution (PPBE) Process. Oct. 10, 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.
H.A.S.C. 113-64--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on An Independent Assessment of the Navy's 30-
Year Shipbuilding Plan. Oct. 23, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-65--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and
Sequestration on Acquisition and Modernization. Oct. 23, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-66--Full Committee hearing on Twenty-Five
Years of Acquisition Reform: Where Do We Go From Here? Oct. 29,
2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-67--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Report from SIGAR: Challenges to
Securing Afghan Women's Gains in a Post-2014 Environment. Oct.
29, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-68--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Nuclear Weapons Modernization Programs: Military, Technical,
and Political Requirements for the B61 Life Extension Program
and Future Stockpile Strategy. Oct. 29, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-69--Full Committee hearing on 2013 Report to
Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission. Nov. 20, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-70--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Military Resale Programs Overview. Nov. 20, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-71--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on U.S. Asia-Pacific Strategic Considerations
Related to People's Liberation Army Naval Forces Modernization.
Dec. 11, 2013.
H.A.S.C. 113-72--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Maritime Sovereignty in the East and South
China Seas (joint with Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of
the Committee on Foreign Affairs). Jan. 14, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-73--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Future Recruiting Challenges in the Fiscally Constrained
Environment. Jan. 16, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-74--Full Committee hearing on Rebalancing to
the Asia-Pacific Region: Examining Its Implementation. Jan. 28,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-75--Subcommittees on Strategic Forces and
Seapower and Projection Forces joint hearing on People's
Republic of China's Counterspace Program and the Implications
for U.S. National Security. Jan. 28, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-76--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services. Jan. 29,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-77--Full Committee hearing on The State of Al
Qaeda, Its Affiliates, and Associated Groups: View from Outside
Experts. Feb. 4, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-78--Full Committee hearing on United States
Security Policy and Defense Posture in the Middle East. Feb.
11, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-79--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S.
Northern Command and U.S. Southern Command. Feb. 26, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-80--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Defense Health Agency. Feb. 26, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-81--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Posture of the U.S. Special
Operations Command and U.S. Transportation Command. Feb. 27,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-82--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities
to Support the Asia-Pacific Rebalance. Feb. 27, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-83--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Requests from the U.S. Pacific
Command, U.S. Central Command, and U.S. Africa Command. Mar. 5,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-84--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of
Defense. Mar. 6, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-85--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the
Navy. Mar. 12, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-86--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Independent Assessments of the Fiscal Year
2015 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces. Mar.
12, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-87--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Information Technology and
Cyber Operations: Modernization and Policy Issues in a Changing
National Security Environment. Mar. 12, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-88--Full Committee hearing on Recent
Developments in Afghanistan. Mar. 13, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-89--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. Special
Operations Command and the Posture of the U.S. Special
Operations Forces. Mar. 13, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-90--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the
Air Force. Mar. 14, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-91--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the
Army. Mar. 25, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-92--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Military Personnel Overview. Mar. 25, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-93--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015
Missile Defense Hearing. Mar. 25, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-94--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Interim Report of the Advisory Panel on the Governance of
the Nuclear Security Enterprise. Mar. 26, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-95--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2015 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat
Aviation Programs. Mar. 26, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-96--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Department of Defense (DOD)
Fiscal Year 2015 Science and Technology Programs: Pursuing
Technology Superiority in a Changing Security Environment. Mar.
26, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-97--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request for
Seapower and Projection Forces. Mar. 26, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-98--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Operation and Maintenance Without OCO Funds: What Now? Mar. 27,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-99--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Requests from U.S. Forces Korea
and U.S. Strategic Command. Apr. 2, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-100--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2015 Ground Force Modernization Programs. Apr. 2,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-101--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs
and Capabilities Related to the 2015 President's Budget
Request. Apr. 2, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-102--Full Committee hearing on the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review. Apr. 3, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-103--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for National
Security Space Activities. Apr. 3, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-104--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Intelligence
Activities. Apr. 4, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-105--Full Committee hearing on Russian
Military Developments and Strategic Implications. Apr. 8, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-106--Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging
Threats and Capabilities hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request
for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Chemical
Biological Defense Program: Combating Weapons of Mass
Destruction in a Changing Global Environment. Apr. 8, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-107--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2015
Atomic Energy Defense and Nuclear Forces. Apr. 8, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-108--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--National Defense Priorities
from Members for the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense
Authorization Act. Apr. 9, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-109--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Beneficiary and Advocacy Overview of the Fiscal Year
2015 President's Budget. Apr. 9, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-110--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Department of
Defense's Readiness Posture. Apr. 10, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-111--Full Committee hearing on The May 31,
2014 Transfer of Five Senior Taliban Detainees. June 11, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-112--Full Committee hearing on P5+1
Negotiations over Iran's Nuclear Program and Its Implications
for United States Defense. June 19, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-113--Full Committee hearing on Case Studies in
DOD Acquisition: Finding What Works. June 24, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-114--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation
Fund: Examining the Department of Defense and Interagency
Process for Verifying Eligibility. June 24, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-115--Full Committee hearing on Defense Reform:
Empowering Success in Acquisition. July 10, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-116--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Cruiser and Destroyer Modernization and Large
Surface Combatant Force Structure Assessment. July 10, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-117--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Government Accountability Office Review of the
Prisoner of War/Missing in Action (POW/MIA) Community and the
Restructuring of These Agencies as Proposed by the Department
of Defense. July 15, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-118--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year
2015 Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request. July 16,
2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-119--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne
Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Requirements Assessment. July
16, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-120--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Russian Violations of the INF Treaty: After Detection--What?
July 17, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-121--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Adapting U.S. Missile Defense for Future Threats: Russia,
China and Modernizing the National Missile Defense (NMD) Act.
July 23, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-122--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Amphibious Fleet Requirements. July 25, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-123--Full Committee hearing on Security
Situation in Iraq and Syria: U.S. Policy Options and
Implications for the Region. July 29, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-124--Full Committee hearing on Risks to
Stability in Afghanistan: Politics, Security, and International
Commitment. July 30, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-125--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Logistics and Sealift Force Requirements and
Force Structure Assessment. July 30, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-126--Full Committee hearing on The
Administration's Strategy for the Islamic State in Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL). Sept. 18, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-127--Full Committee hearing on The
Administration's Strategy and Military Campaign against Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Nov. 13, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-128--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on The Department of Defense Excess
Property Program in Support of U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies:
An Overview of DOD Authorities, Roles, Responsibilities, and
Implementation of Section 1033 of the 1997 National Defense
Authorization Act. Nov. 13, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-129--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services. Nov.
19, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-130--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Panel Assessment of the 2014 Quadrennial Defense
Review. Dec. 2, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-131--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on The Role of Maritime and Air Power in DOD's
Third Offset Strategy. Dec. 2, 2014.
H.A.S.C. 113-132--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Russian Arms Control Cheating and the Administration's
Responses (joint with Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade of the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs). Dec. 10, 2014.
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
Second Session
January 6, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on al-Qaeda in
Iraq
January 6, 2014--Armed Services Committee Mourns The
Passing of John Chapla
January 8, 2014--McKeon Welcomes Rep. Bradley Byrne to the
House Armed Services Committee
January 10, 2014--McKeon Statement on Pentagon's Finding on
Snowden
January 13, 2014--Declassified Transcripts of Benghazi
Briefings Released Files
January 13, 2014--Committee Members React to Chinese Hyper
Sonic Missile Test
January 15, 2014--McKeon Taps Heck As Oversight And
Investigations Chair
January 16, 2014--McKeon, Smith on the Passing of former
Rep. Ben Blaz
January 30, 2014--HASC Leaders Call on Obama Administration
to Act on Russia's Cheating on Nuclear Agreements
February 10, 2014--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Releases Report on DOD Response to Benghazi
February 12, 2014--McKeon Statement on Karzai Government's
Planned Release of Enemy Combatants in Afghanistan
February 17, 2014--McKeon Queries Services and COCOMs On
Unfunded Requirements Files
March 1, 2014--McKeon Statement on Russian Military Action
in Ukraine
March 4, 2014--McKeon Statement on DoD Budget
March 4, 2014--Chairman McKeon Rejects QDR
March 12, 2014--McKeon Comments On Menendez Bill
March 26, 2014--ARMED SERVICES LEADERS URGE PRESIDENT TO
ACT ON UKRAINE
March 27, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on the Passing of
Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger
April 1, 2014--McKeon Statement on Ryan Budget
April 2, 2014--Bipartisan National Security Leaders Reach
Out to Stakeholders on DoD Reform
April 3, 2014--McKeon, Smith Welcome Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to
the House Armed Services Committee
April 4, 2014--McKeon Statement on ENLIST Act and the NDAA
April 7, 2014--McKeon Releases the FY15 NDAA Markup
Schedule
April 7, 2014--McKeon, Turner To Discuss Russia, Ukraine,
and U.S. Military Posture
April 7, 2014--McKeon Statement on Afghanistan Elections
April 10, 2014--McKeon, Smith Begin FY 2015 Defense
Authorization Process
April 23, 2014--Committee to Add Electronic Amendment
Distribution to Press for NDAA Markup
April 29, 2014--Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee Mark Released
April 29, 2014--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Released
April 29, 2014--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee
Mark Released
April 29, 2014--Military Personnel Subcommittee Mark
Released
April 30, 2014--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Mark Released
April 30, 2014--Readiness Subcommittee Mark Released
April 30, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
April 30, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Forbes
April 30, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Wilson
May 1, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Turner
May 1, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman Wittman
May 1, 2014--McKeon Responds to Oversight and Government
Reform Committee Witness on Benghazi
May 2, 2014--Chairman McKeon in Washington Post: Obama's
inaction invites challenges to the U.S.
May 2, 2014--McKeon Congratulates Wada
May 5, 2014--McKeon Releases Full Committee Mark Files
May 8, 2014--Chairman McKeon on Passage of NDAA
May 8, 2014--Chairmen Rogers, Poe and Heck Statement on
NDAA INF Treaty Provision
May 22, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of the
53rd National Defense Authorization Act
May 27, 2014--McKeon Statement on President's Troop Level
Announcement
May 28, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Secretary
Shinseki
May 31, 2014--McKeon, Inhofe, Statement On Release Of
Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl In Exchange For Release Of Five
Guantanamo Detainees
June 2, 2014--Fact Sheet on Guantanamo Transfers
June 3, 2014--McKeon Invites Secretary Hagel to testify on
Transfer of Senior Taliban Detainees
June 5, 2014--McKeon on Dunford Nomination
June 11, 2014--McKeon Responds To New White House Claims On
Terrorist Transfer
June 11, 2014--Opening Statement of Chairman McKeon on The
May 31, 202014 Transfer of Five Senior Taliban Detainees
June 13, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Situation in
Iraq
June 17, 2014--Chairman McKeon on Capture of Ahmed Abu
Khattala
June 18, 2014--Readout of House Armed Services Committee
Taliban Transfer Briefing
June 19, 2014--McKeon on President Obama's Iraq Statement
June 20, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2015
June 23, 2014--McKeon Statement on Successful Ballistic
Missile Defense Test
June 26, 2014--McKeon Comments On Overseas Contingency
Operations Request
June 27, 2014--McKeon Statement on President Obama's Land
Mine Announcement
July 9, 2014--Additional Declassified Benghazi Transcripts
Released
July 24, 2014--Armed Services Committee to Consider Rigell
Taliban 5 Resolution
July 25, 2014--McKeon Responds to Ambassador Susan Rice's
Letter to Speaker Boehner
July 28, 2014--JUST THE FACTS: How the Transfer of the
Taliban Five Violated The Law
July 30, 2014--JUST THE FACTS: Obama Administration's Long-
Overdue Recognition of Russian Cheating on the INF Treaty
July 30, 2014--McKeon Statement on HASC Markup of H. Res
644
August 1, 2014--HASC Members Urge Senator Harry Reid to
Support Israel by Bringing SASC NDAA Mark to the Floor
August 5, 2014--McKeon Statement on Afghanistan Attack
August 7, 2014--McKeon Statement on Situation in Iraq
August 21, 2014--McKeon Calls for Leak Investigation Around
Foley Rescue Attempt
August 27, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on ISIS
August 28, 2014--McKeon, Turner Statement on Reports of
Russian Troops in Ukraine
September 5, 2014--Full House to Vote on HASC-passed
Resolution of Condemnation by Rep. Rigell
September 10, 2014--FACT SHEET: 5 Elements Of A Successful
Strategy To Destroy ISIL
September 10, 2014--McKeon on ISIL: Politics Must Not Be A
Limiting Factor
September 11, 2014--McKeon Statement On Obama Strategy To
Defeat ISIL
September 11, 2014--McKeon Statement on 9/11 Anniversary
September 11, 2014--McKeon Presents Strategy to Defeat ISIL
at AEI
September 15, 2014--Chairman McKeon Amendment on Syria
Train and Equip Mission
September 18, 2014--Chairman McKeon Statement on Passage of
Syria Train and Equip Amendment
September 23, 2014--McKeon Statement on Action Against ISIL
Terrorists in Syria
September 26, 2014--McKeon, Thornberry Seek Answers from
National Security Advisor Susan Rice
September 29, 2014--McKeon Statement on Bilateral Security
Agreement with Afghan Government
October 23, 2014--McKeon Statement on Terrorist Attack In
Canada
October 30, 2014--McKeon Calls on Secretary Hagel to
Immediately Suspend All Terror Detainee Transfers
November 7, 2014--McKeon Statement on Potential White House
Funding Request
November 14, 2014--McKeon Comments On Hagel Nuclear Force
Recommendations
November 18, 2014--McKeon Congratulates HASC Chairman-
Select Thornberry
November 20, 2014--McKeon: GTMO Releases Must Stop
December 2, 2014--HASC, SASC Release Text of FY 2015 NDAA
Agreement
December 4, 2014--McKeon Delivers Farewell Address to House
as NDAA passes 300-119
December 5, 2014--McKeon Statement on Misconduct Aboard the
USS Wyoming
December 9, 2014--Chairman-Elect Thornberry Welcomes New
Members To The House Armed Services Committee