[House Report 114-885]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 695
114th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 114-885
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 22, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Union Calendar No. 695
114th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 114-885
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 22, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-125 WASHINGTON : 2016
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress
WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
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 NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOHN GARAMENDI, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado Georgia
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MO BROOKS, Alabama RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
PAUL COOK, California BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio PETE AGUILAR, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana (Vacancy)
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama (Vacancy)
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 22, 2016.
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
report on the activities of the Committee on Armed Services for
the 114th Congress.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry, Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Powers and Duties................................................ 1
Committee Rules.................................................. 4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services................... 17
Committee Staff.................................................. 23
Committee Meetings and Hearings.................................. 25
Legislative Activities........................................... 25
Oversight Activities............................................. 31
Publications..................................................... 123
Union Calendar No. 695
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 114-885
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE
114TH CONGRESS
_______
December 22, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thornberry, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
POWERS AND DUTIES
Background
The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs.
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3,
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a
continuing basis all laws, programs, and Government activities
dealing with or involving international arms control and
disarmament and the education of military dependents in school.
The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on
January 4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of
atomic energy in the Committee on Armed Services. Those
responsibilities involved the national security aspects of
atomic energy previously within the jurisdiction of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 95-110, effective
September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy.
With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which
established the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed
Service over intelligence matters was changed. That resolution
gave the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversight
responsibilities for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities and programs of the U.S. Government. Specifically,
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exclusive
legislative jurisdiction regarding the Central Intelligence
Agency and the director of Central Intelligence, including
authorizations. Also, legislative jurisdiction over all
intelligence and intelligence-related activities and programs
was vested in the permanent select committee except that other
committees with a jurisdictional interest may request
consideration of any such matters. Accordingly, as a matter of
practice, the Committee on Armed Services shared jurisdiction
over the authorization process involving intelligence-related
activities.
The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4,
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals.
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence
matters and the intelligence related activities of the
Department of Defense.
On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered
cemeteries.
Constitutional Powers and Duties
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8 of the United
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that
Congress shall have power:
To raise and support Armies;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States;
To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all Places
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
House Rules on Jurisdiction
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and
Air Force reservations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum
and oil shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of
interoceanic canals.
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including
financial assistance for the construction and operation of
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the
national security.
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in support of the
armed services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force.
(14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the
common defense.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special
oversight functions with respect to international arms control
and disarmament and the education of military dependents in
schools.
Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight
H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority
for each committee to investigate matters within its
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated,
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on
Armed Services.
The committee derives its authority to conduct oversight
from, among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to
investigations and studies).
COMMITTEE RULES
The committee held its organizational meeting on January
14, 2015, and adopted the following rules governing rules and
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full
committee and its subcommittees. (H.A.S.C. 114-1; Committee
Print No. 1)
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules
of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far
as applicable.
(b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be
publicly available in electronic form and published in the
Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the chair of
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,
when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such
other times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Chairman''), or by written
request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed
with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a
written request of a majority of the members of the Committee.
RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee
Chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the
Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority
Member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding,
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and
subcommittee meetings or hearings.
RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES
(a) Jurisdiction
(1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all
subjects listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
retains exclusive jurisdiction for: defense policy
generally, ongoing military operations, the
organization and reform of the Department of Defense
and Department of Energy, counter-drug programs,
security and humanitarian assistance (except special
operations-related activities) of the Department of
Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy,
technology transfer and export controls, joint
interoperability, detainee affairs and policy, force
protection policy and inter-agency reform as it
pertains to the Department of Defense and the nuclear
weapons programs of the Department of Energy. In
addition the committee will be responsible for
intelligence policy (including coordination of military
intelligence programs), national intelligence programs,
and Department of Defense elements that are part of the
Intelligence Community. While subcommittees are
provided jurisdictional responsibilities in
subparagraph (2), the Committee retains the right to
exercise oversight and legislative jurisdiction over
all subjects within its purview under rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of
seven standing subcommittees with the following
jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All
Army, Air Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs
(except Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle
programs, strategic missiles, space, lift programs,
special operations, science and technology programs,
and information technology accounts) and the associated
weapons systems sustainment. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine
Corps aviation programs and the associated weapons
systems sustainment, National Guard and Army, Air Force
and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition
programs.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military
personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and
employment issues, military health care, military
education, and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare
and Recreation issues and programs.
Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness,
training, logistics and maintenance issues and
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be
responsible for all military construction, depot
policy, civilian personnel policy, environmental
policy, installations and family housing issues,
including the base closure process, and energy policy
and programs of the Department of Defense.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy
acquisition programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and
Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs
(except strategic weapons, space, special operations,
science and technology programs, and information
technology programs), deep strike bombers and related
systems, lift programs, seaborne unmanned aerial
systems and the associated weapons systems sustainment.
In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
Maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the
Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5 and 9 of clause
1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons
(except deep strike bombers and related systems), space
programs (including national intelligence space
programs), ballistic missile defense, the associated
weapons systems sustainment, the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, and Department of Energy national
security programs.
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities:
Defense-wide and joint enabling activities and programs
to include: Special Operations Forces; counter-
proliferation and counter-terrorism programs and
initiatives; science and technology policy and
programs; information technology programs; homeland
defense and Department of Defense related consequence
management programs; related intelligence support; and
other enabling programs and activities to include cyber
operations, strategic communications, and information
operations.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Any
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee,
subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the
Committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee
chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative
jurisdiction.
(b) Membership of the Subcommittees
(1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of
membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, shall be filled in accordance with the
rules of the Majority party's conference and the
Minority party's caucus, respectively.
(2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be
filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority
party's conference and the Minority party's caucus,
respectively. Consistent with the party ratios
established by the Majority party, all other Majority
members of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the
Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority
members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking
Minority Member thereof may sit as ex officio members
of all subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote
in subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into
consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio
of the subcommittees or establishing a quorum at
subcommittee hearings or meetings.
(4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of
a particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee
and participate during any of its hearings but shall
not have authority to vote, cannot be counted for the
purpose of achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point
of order at the hearing.
RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES
(a) Committee Panels
(1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the
Committee consisting of members of the Committee to
inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters
that fall within the jurisdiction of more than one
subcommittee and to report to the Committee.
(2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue
in existence for more than six months after the
appointment. A panel so appointed may, upon the
expiration of six months, be reappointed by the
Chairman for a period of time which is not to exceed
six months.
(3) Consistent with the party ratios established by
the Majority party, all Majority members of the panels
shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee,
and all Minority members shall be appointed by the
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. The Chairman
of the Committee shall choose one of the Majority
members so appointed who does not currently chair
another subcommittee of the Committee to serve as
Chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee shall similarly choose the Ranking
Minority Member of the panel.
(4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
(b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
(1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a
subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of
the Committee, may designate a task force to inquire
into and take testimony on a matter that falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee,
respectively. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee or subcommittee shall each appoint an
equal number of members to the task force. The Chairman
of the Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of
the members so appointed, who does not currently chair
another subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as
Chairman of the task force. The Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee or subcommittee shall similarly
appoint the Ranking Minority Member of the task force.
(2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee or subcommittee shall continue in existence
for more than three months. A task force may only be
reappointed for an additional three months with the
written concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee whose
Chairman appointed the task force.
(3) No task force shall have legislative
jurisdiction.
RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by
the Committee.
(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee,
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee.
(e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation
and other matters to be considered by the House of
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and
other applicable rules.
RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee, or
of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, shall make a public
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before
the commencement of a hearing and at least three days before
the commencement of a meeting. However, if the Chairman of the
Committee, or of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, with
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member,
determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or
meeting sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or
task force so determines by majority vote, a quorum being
present for the transaction of business, such chairman shall
make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any
announcement made under this rule shall be promptly published
in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee
scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and
promptly made publicly available in electronic form.
(b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before
such meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the
public.
(b) Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of
business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the
Committee, or any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the
extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct
markups, shall be open to the public except when the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force in open session and with a
majority being present, determines by record vote that all or
part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day
shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony,
evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the
preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in
attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing
or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony
or evidence to be received would endanger the national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive
session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a
majority of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force
being present.
(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee or
subcommittee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is
asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the
witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of
(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or
testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a
majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no
fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the
Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. A majority
of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two
members of the Committee or subcommittee may also vote to close
the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing
whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. The Committee or
subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open
session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being
present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of
the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by
letter to the Chairman, one member of that member's personal
staff, and an alternate, which may include fellows, with Top
Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee,
or that member's subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s)
(excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of
committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the
provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes
for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff
member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval of
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated
by national security requirements at that time. The attainment
of any required security clearances is the responsibility of
individual members of the Committee.
(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance
at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the
House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the
Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series
of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the
public.
(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same
procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five
additional consecutive days of hearings.
RULE 10. QUORUM
(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving
evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.
(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action,
with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the
Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;
(2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and
hearings to the public;
(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;
(4) Authorizing the use of executive session
material; and
(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to
close to disclose whether evidence or testimony to be
received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person.
(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the
House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is
actually present.
RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE
(a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address
the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under
consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when
the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee
chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be
exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall
be recognized for not more than five minutes to address the
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee.
(b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the
Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened
shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman,
as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member will take precedence upon their arrival. In
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the
Majority to Minority members present and shall establish the
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to
disadvantage the members of either party.
(2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a
member of the Committee who is not a member of a
subcommittee may be recognized by a subcommittee
chairman in order of their arrival and after all
present subcommittee members have been recognized.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee,
with the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority
Member, may depart with the regular order for
questioning which is specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this rule provided that such a decision is
announced prior to the hearing or prior to the opening
statements of the witnesses and that any such departure
applies equally to the Majority and the Minority.
(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel,
or task force hearings and meetings.
RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER
(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
(1) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not
limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers
necessary.
(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full
Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in
the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations
or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the
members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee
being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the
Chairman, or by any member designated by the Committee.
(2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, compliance with any
subpoena issued by the Committee or any subcommittee
under subparagraph (a)(2) may be enforced only as
authorized or directed by the House of Representatives.
RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS
(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to
the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the
Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of
presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the
Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less
than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national
security information bearing a classification of Confidential
or higher, the statement shall be made available in the
Committee rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee
as soon as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of
presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from
the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be
waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a
quorum being present. In cases where a witness does not submit
a statement by the time required under this rule, the Chairman
of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with the
concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may
elect to exclude the witness from the hearing.
(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each
witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee
in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the
proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such
appearance to a brief summary of the submitted written
statement.
(c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness,
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later
than one day after the witness appears.
RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES
(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman,
may administer oaths to any witness.
(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following
oath:
``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the
testimony you will give before this Committee (or
subcommittee) in the matters now under consideration
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?''
RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES
(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a
subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put
questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman
or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire
shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness
or panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or
witnesses being included in the five-minute period, until such
time as each member has had an opportunity to question each
witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds
for questioning witnesses by members are within the discretion
of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.
(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or
subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that
may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration.
RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS
The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the
Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially
in substantially verbatim form, with the material requested for
the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of
the record, as appropriate. The transcripts of markups
conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be published
officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct any
errors, other than those in transcription, will be appended to
the record, and the appropriate place where the change is
requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under
this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted
in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include
materials that have been submitted for the record and are
covered under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these
materials shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No
transcript of an executive session conducted under rule 9 shall
be published under this rule.
RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS
(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote,
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be
cast by proxy.
(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
(e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as
appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority
Member or the most senior Minority member who is present at the
time, may elect to postpone requested record votes until such
time or point at a markup as is mutually decided. When
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any
intervening order for the previous question, the underlying
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.
RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS
(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice
of intention to file supplemental, Minority, additional or
dissenting views, all members shall be entitled to not less
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in
which to file such written and signed views with the Staff
Director of the Committee, or the Staff Director's designee.
All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee
shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report
filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter.
(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee
report on the measure or matter.
(c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee,
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS
The result of each record vote in any meeting of the
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of
the Committee and also made publicly available in electronic
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause
2(e)(1)B(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. Information so available shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition and the name of each member voting for and each
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or
proposition and the names of those members present but not
voting.
RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION
(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security
information bearing a classification of Confidential or higher
which has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee
shall be deemed to have been received in executive session and
shall be given appropriate safekeeping.
(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any national security information that is
received which is classified as Confidential or higher. Such
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by
any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of
the Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has
requested the opportunity to review such material.
(c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation
with the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as
in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any proprietary information that is received by
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such
procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of
Representatives and applicable law.
RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING
The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS
The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
Records Administration shall be made available for public use
in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority
Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause
4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and
the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a
determination on the written request of any member of the
Committee.
RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES
Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS
Not later than January 2nd of each odd-numbered year the
Committee shall submit to the House a report on its activities,
pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Full Committee
Pursuant to H. Res. 6 (agreed to on January 6, 2015), H.
Res. 7 (agreed to on January 6, 2015), H. Res. 29 (agreed to on
January 13, 2015), H. Res. 30 (agreed to on January 13, 2015),
and H. Res. 165 (agreed to on March 24, 2015), the following
Members have served on the Committee on Armed Services in the
114th Congress:
WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
Texas, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking MemberALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RICK LARSEN, Washington ROB BISHOP, Utah
JIM COOPER, Tennessee MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JOHN GARAMENDI, California BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JACKIE SPEIER, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOAQUIN CASTRO,\3\ Texas ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SCOTT H. PETERS, California JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
BETO O'ROURKE, Texas JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona STEVEN M. PALAZZO,\1\ Mississippi
MARK TAKAI,\4\ Hawaii MO BROOKS, Alabama
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska PAUL COOK, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
PETE AGUILAR, California BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
STEVE RUSSELL,\2\ Oklahoma
----------
\1\Mr. Palazzo resigned from the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\2\Mr. Russell was elected to the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\3\Mr. Castro took a leave of absence from the committee on July 6,
2016.
\4\Mr. Takai died on July 20, 2016.
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The following subcommittees were established at the
committee's organizational meeting on January 14, 2015.
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Defense-wide and
joint enabling activities and programs to include: Special
Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy and
programs; information technology programs; homeland defense and
Department of Defense related consequence management programs;
related intelligence support; and other enabling programs and
activities to include cyber operations, strategic
communications, and information operations.
JOE WILSON, South Carolina,
Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California DUNCAN HUNTER, California
JOAQUIN CASTRO,\1\ Texas RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair
BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
PETE AGUILAR, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
----------
\1\Mr. Castro took a leave of absence from the committee on July 6,
2016.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military
personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and employment
issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA
issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada, Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JACKIE SPEIER, California THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota ViceChair
BETO O'ROURKE, Texas ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
PAUL COOK, California
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
Subcommittee on Readiness
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
all military construction, depot policy, civilian personnel
policy, environmental policy, installations and family housing
issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy
and programs of the Department of Defense.
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia,
Chairman
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam ROB BISHOP, Utah
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
JOAQUIN CASTRO,\3\ Texas ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York, Vice
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois Chair
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
BETO O'ROURKE, Texas CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona STEVEN M. PALAZZO,\1\ Mississippi
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
SAM GRAVES, MISSOURI
STEVE RUSSELL,\2\ Oklahoma
----------
\1\Mr. Palazzo resigned from the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\2\Mr. Russell was assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness on Mar.
24, 2015.
\3\Mr. Castro took a leave of absence from the committee on July 6,
2016.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy acquisition
programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps amphibious
assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, space,
special operations, science and technology programs, and
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and
related systems, lift programs, seaborne unmanned aerial
systems and the associated weapons systems sustainment. In
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Maritime
programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated
in paragraphs 5 and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia,
Chairman
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island STEVEN M. PALAZZO,\1\ Mississippi
RICK LARSEN, Washington BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaNCAN HUNTER, California, Vice
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Chair
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida PAUL COOK, California
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
STEVE RUSSELL,\2\ Oklahoma
----------
\1\Mr. Palazzo resigned from the committee on Mar. 24, 2015.
\2\Mr. Russell was assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces on Mar. 24, 2015.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Strategic
weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space
programs (including national intelligence space programs),
ballistic missile defense, the associated weapons systems
sustainment, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and
Department of Energy national security programs.
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Vice Chair
RICK LARSEN, Washington MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
MARK TAKAI,\1\ Hawaii JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
PETE AGUILAR, California ROB BISHOP, Utah
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana
----------
\1\Mr. Takai died on July 20, 2016.
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--All Army, Air
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles,
space, lift programs, special operations, science and
technology programs, and information technology accounts) and
the associated weapons systems sustainment. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine Corps
aviation programs and the associated weapons systems
sustainment, National Guard and Army, Air Force and Marine
Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition programs.
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
MARK TAKAI,\1\ Hawaii STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
----------
\1\Mr. Takai died on July 20, 2016.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the
concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee and, as
appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee
shall have no legislative jurisdiction.
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri,
Chairwoman
JACKIE SPEIER, California JEFF MILLER, Florida
JIM COOPER, Tennessee K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., GeorgiaSEPH J. HECK, Nevada
GWEN GRAHAM, Florida AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
COMMITTEE STAFF
By committee resolution adopted at the organizational
meeting on January 14, 2015, or by authority of the chairman,
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the
committee during the 114th Congress:
Bob Simmons, Staff Director
Jenness Simler, Deputy Staff
Director
Catherine McElroy, General Counsel
(resigned December 4, 2015)
Andrew Peterson, General Counsel
(appointed January 11, 2016)
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
John F. Sullivan, Professional
Staff Member
Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff
Member
Jeanette S. James, Professional
Staff Member
Rebecca A. Ross, Professional
Staff Member
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff
Member
Lynn M. Williams, Professional
Staff Member (resigned January 8,
2016)
John Wason, Professional Staff
Member
Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
(resigned August 1, 2016)
Douglas Bush, Professional Staff
Member
Vickie Plunkett, Professional
Staff Member
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff
Member
Mike Casey, Professional Staff
Member (resigned January 8, 2016)
David Sienicki, Professional Staff
Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative
Operations
Everett Coleman, Professional
Staff Member
Craig Greene, Professional Staff
Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional
Staff Member
Jack Schuler, Professional Staff
Member
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff
Member (resigned October 1, 2015)
John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff
Member
Peter Villano, Professional Staff
Member
Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie Lynch, Professional Staff
Member (resigned January 9, 2015)
Michele Pearce, Counsel (resigned
April 7, 2015)
Catherine Sendak, Professional
Staff Member
Michael Amato, Professional Staff
Member (resigned October 15, 2015)
Robert J. McAlister, Deputy
Spokesman (resigned February 5,
2015)
Christopher J. Bright,
Professional Staff Member
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff
Member
Elizabeth Conrad, Professional
Staff Member
Andrew T. Walter, Professional
Staff Member
Claude Chafin, Communications
Director
Aaron Falk, Clerk (resigned
February 12, 2015)
Tim Morrison, Counsel
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff
Member (resigned April 7, 2015)
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff
Member
Katie Thompson, Security Manager
Alexander Gallo, Professional
Staff Member
Eric L. Smith, Clerk (resigned
September 7, 2015)
Joe Sangiorgio, Communications
Assistant (resigned January 25,
2015)
John Noonan, Deputy Communications
Director (resigned April 20, 2015)
Colin Bosse, Research Assistant
(resigned November 4, 2016)
Julie Herbert, Clerk (resigned
July 24, 2015)
David Giachetti, Professional
Staff Member
Kari Bingen, Professional Staff
Member
Abigail P. Gage, Research
Assistant (resigned April 14,
2016)
Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional
Staff Member
Katie Rember, Clerk (resigned May
29, 2016)
Joe Whited, Professional Staff
Member (resigned April 15, 2016)
Candace Wagner, Executive
Assistant
Michael Miller, Professional Staff
Member (resigned November 30,
2016)
Alison Lynn, Spokesman and
Director of Member Initiatives
(appointed January 15, 2015)
Mark Morehouse, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 15,
2015)
Nick Mikula, Press Secretary
(appointed February 17, 2015)
Michael Tehrani, Clerk (appointed
February 23, 2015, resigned
February 22, 2016)
Scott Glabe, Counsel (appointed
April 6, 2015, resigned January
22, 2016)
Craig Collier, Professional Staff
Member (appointed May 7, 2015)
Bruce Johnson, Professional Staff
Member (appointed July 1, 2015)
Daniel Sennott, Professional Staff
Member (appointed July 1, 2015)
Mike Gancio, Clerk (appointed
August 17, 2015)
Nevada Schadler, Clerk (appointed
September 1, 2015)
Andrew Warren, Professional Staff
Member (appointed October 19,
2015)
Margaret Dean, Professional Staff
Member (appointed November 2,
2015)
Jen Stewart, Professional Staff
Member (appointed December 7,
2015, resigned
February 15, 2016)
Bob Daigle, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 4, 2016)
Alexis Lasselle Ross, Professional
Staff Member (appointed January 4,
2016)
Mark Osmack, Research Assistant
(appointed January 4, 2016,
resigned June 24, 2016
Katy Quinn, Professional Staff
Member (appointed February 1,
2016)
Britton Burkett, Clerk (appointed
March 7, 2016)
Barron YoungSmith, Counsel
(appointed April 11, 2016)
Matthew Sullivan, Counsel
(appointed April 12, 2016)
Emily Murphy, Counsel (appointed
May 2, 2016)
Anna Waterfield, Research
Assistant (appointed May 16, 2016)
Jodi Brignola, Clerk (appointed
June 6, 2016)
Brian Greer, Professional Staff
Member (appointed October 3, 2016)
Jason Schmid, Professional Staff
Member (appointed October 3, 2016)
Megan Handal, Clerk (appointed
November 7, 2016)
Andy Schulman, Professional Staff
Member (appointed November 15,
2016)
Danielle Steitz, Clerk (appointed
November 29, 2016)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
A total of 285 meetings and hearings have been held by the
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the
114th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and hearings
follows:
Full Committee.................................................... 77
Subcommittees:
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............. 34
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................ 30
Subcommittee on Readiness..................................... 27
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................ 35
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................. 42
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................. 24
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................. 16
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
Public Laws
Public Law 114-92 (S. 1356)--National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016
S. 1356 was introduced on May 14, 2015, by Senator Ron
Johnson. The bill's title as introduced was, ``A bill to
clarify that certain provisions of the Border Patrol Agent Pay
Reform Act of 2014 will not take effect until after the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management promulgates and
makes effective regulations relating to such provisions.'' The
bill was passed without amendment by unanimous consent in the
Senate on May 14, 2015, and was held at the desk in the House.
On May 15, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R.
1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016, and on June 18, 2015, the Senate passed its version of
H.R. 1735. The House and Senate convened a conference committee
to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the
bill. On September 29, 2015, Chairman Mac Thornberry filed the
conference report to accompany H.R. 1735 (H. Rept. 114-270) in
the House. On October 1, 2015, the House agreed to the
conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, and on October 7,
2015, the conference report was agreed to in the Senate. On
October 22, 2015, H.R. 1735 was vetoed by the President and was
returned to the House (H. Doc. 114-70).
On October 28, 2015, the House passed H.R. 1314, the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, and on October 30, 2015, the
Senate also passed H.R. 1314. The President signed the bill on
November 2, 2015. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Public Law
114-74) did not fund Budget Function 050 to the level requested
by the President in the fiscal year 2016 budget submission, and
as agreed to by the conferees and authorized in H.R. 1735.
The final version of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) was the product of an
agreement between the House Committee on Armed Services and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services on H.R. 1735 to conform to
the funding levels in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The
agreement included a reduction of $5.1 billion from the level
authorized in H.R. 1735. The resulting agreement was brought to
the House floor in the form of an amendment to S. 1356. On
November 5, 2015, the House suspended the rules and passed S.
1356, as amended, by a vote of 370-58 (Roll no. 618). On
November 10, 2015, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to
S. 1356 by a vote of 91-3 (Record Vote Number: 301). The
President signed the legislation on November 25, 2015, and it
became Public Law 114-92.
Public Law 114-92, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016, did the following: (1) Authorized
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation; (2) Authorized
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for operation and
maintenance and for working capital funds; (3) Authorized for
fiscal year 2016: (a) the personnel strength for each Active
Duty Component of the military departments; (b) the personnel
strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of
the Armed Forces; and (c) the military training student loads
for each of the Active and Reserve Components of the military
departments; (4) Modified various elements of compensation for
military personnel and impose certain requirements and
limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment;
(5) Authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military
construction and family housing; (6) Authorized appropriations
for Overseas Contingency Operations; (7) Authorized
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Department of
Energy national security programs; and (8) Authorized
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for the Maritime
Administration.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
included the large majority of the findings and recommendations
resulting from the oversight activities of Committee on Armed
Services in the previous year, as informed by the experience
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
Public Law 114-149 (S. 719)--A bill to rename the Armed Forces Reserve
Center in Great Falls, Montana, the Captain John E. Moran and Captain
William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center
S. 719, ``A bill to rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center
in Great Falls, Montana, the Captain John E. Moran and Captain
William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center'' was introduced
on March 11, 2015, by Senator Jon Tester, and was referred to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services. On March 16, 2016, the
Senate Committee on Armed Services was discharged and the bill
was passed in the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent. On March 17, 2016, the bill was received in the House
and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. The
Subcommittee on Military Personnel and the full committee
waived consideration of S. 719. On April 18, 2016, Mr. Ryan
Zinke moved to consider S. 719 under suspension of the rules of
the House, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass the
bill was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 387-0, 1 present (Roll
no. 154). On April 29, 2016, S. 719 was signed by the President
and became Public Law 114-149.
Legislation Vetoed by the President
H.R. 1735--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
On April 13, 2015, H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was introduced by
Chairman Mac Thornberry and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. On April 29, 2015, the Committee on Armed Services
held a markup session to consider H.R. 1735. The committee, a
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1735, as amended,
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-2.
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 15, 2015, by
recorded vote, 269-151 (Roll no. 239). On May 21, 2015, the
bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders Calendar No.
99.
On June 3, 2015, the measure was laid before the Senate by
unanimous consent. On June 18, 2015, the Senate then struck all
after the enacting clause, inserted the language of a
substitute amendment consisting of the Senate passed bill, and
then passed H.R. 1735 with an amendment by yea-nay vote, 71-25
(Record Vote Number: 215). On June 25, 2015, Chairman
Thornberry moved that the House disagree to the Senate
amendment and request a conference, which was agreed to by
voice vote. On July 9, 2015, the Senate insisted on the Senate
amendment and agreed to the request for conference. On
September 29, 2015, the conference report to accompany H.R.
1735 (H. Rept. 114-270) was filed in the House. On October 1,
2015, the conference report was agreed to in the House by the
yeas and nays, 270-156 (Roll no. 532). On October 7, 2015, the
conference report was agreed to in the Senate, 70-27 (Record
Vote Number: 277). On October 22, 2015, H.R. 1735 was vetoed by
the President and was returned to the House (H. Doc. 114-70).
No further action was taken on H.R. 1735.
For further action on the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016, please see S. 1356.
Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress
S. 2943--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
S. 2943 was reported to the Senate as an original measure
by Chairman John McCain on May 18, 2016. The Senate began
consideration of S. 2943 on May 23, 2016. It passed the Senate
with amendments by yea-nay vote, 85-13 (Record Vote Number: 98)
on June 14, 2016. Two days later, S. 2943 was sent to the House
and held at the desk.
On July 7, 2016, consideration of S. 2943 was initiated in
the House pursuant to H. Res. 809. The House struck all after
the enacting clause in S. 2943 and inserted in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 4909, as passed the House. Pursuant to the
provisions of H. Res. 809, Mr. Thornberry moved that the House
insist upon its amendment, and requested a conference with the
Senate. On July 14, 2016, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to the Senate bill and agreed to the request for
conference by unanimous consent. On November 30, 2016, the
conference report to accompany S. 2943 (H. Rept. 114-840) was
filed in the House. On December 2, 2016, the conference report
was agreed to in the House by the yeas and nays, 375-34 (Roll
no. 600). On December 8, 2016, the conference report was agreed
to in Senate, 92-7 (Record Vote Number: 159).
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2017 for procurement and for research, development, test, and
evaluation; (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017
for operation and maintenance and for working capital funds;
(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2017: (a) the personnel strength
for each Active Duty Component of the military departments; (b)
the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each
Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; and (c) the military
training student loads for each of the Active and Reserve
Components of the military departments; (4) Modify various
elements of compensation for military personnel and impose
certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in
the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2017 for military construction and family housing;
(6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency
Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017
for the Department of Energy national security programs; and
(8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for the
Maritime Administration.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, is a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills
one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I,
section 8 of the United States Constitution, which grants
Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to provide and
maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of
Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of
Defense generally, and over the military application of nuclear
energy, to the House Committee on Armed Services. The bill
includes the large majority of the findings and recommendations
resulting from the oversight activities of Committee on Armed
Services in the current year, as informed by the experience
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
Legislation Passed by the House of Representatives
H.R. 3894--To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the prompt
notification of State Child Protective Services by military and
civilian personnel of the Department of Defense required by law to
report suspected instances of child abuse and neglect
H.R. 3894, ``To amend title 10, United States Code, to
require the prompt notification of State Child Protective
Services by military and civilian personnel of the Department
of Defense required by law to report suspected instances of
child abuse and neglect'' was introduced on November 3, 2015,
by Representative Tulsi Gabbard and was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services. The Subcommittee on Military
Personnel and the full committee waived consideration of H.R.
3894. On February 9, 2016, Representative Elise Stefanik moved
to consider H.R. 3894 under suspension of the rules of the
House, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill
was agreed to by voice vote. On February 10, 2016, H.R. 3894
was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services. No further action has been
taken on H.R. 3894. However, the conferees included similar
legislation in section 574 of S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
H.R. 4298--Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act
H.R. 4298, the Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act, was
introduced on December 18, 2015, by Representative Mark E.
Amodei and was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On September 8, 2016,
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on H.R.
4298. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs waived consideration
of H.R. 4298, and on December 7, 2016, Representative Joseph J.
Heck moved to consider H.R. 4298 under suspension of the rules
of the House. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill
was agreed to by voice vote. On December 8, 2016, H.R. 4298 was
received in the Senate. No further action has been taken on the
bill.
H.R. 4909--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
On April 12, 2016, H.R. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, was introduced by
Chairman Mac Thornberry and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. On April 27, 2016, the Committee on Armed Services
held a markup session to consider H.R. 4909. The committee, a
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 4909, as amended,
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-2.
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 18, 2016, by
recorded vote, 277-147 (Roll no. 216). On May 26, 2016, the
bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders Calendar No.
216. For further action on the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017, please see S. 2943.
H.R. 5015--Combat-Injured Veterans Tax Fairness Act of 2016
H.R. 5015, the Combat-Injured Veterans Tax Fairness Act of
2016, was introduced on April 20, 2016, by Representative David
Rouzer and was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and
in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. The Committee on Armed
Services waived consideration of H.R. 5015, and on December 5,
2016, Representative Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, moved to consider H.R. 5015, as amended, under
suspension of the rules of the House. The motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended, was agreed to by the yeas
and nays, 392-0 (Roll no. 601). On December 6, 2016, H.R. 5015
was received in the Senate. No further action has been taken on
the bill.
H.R. 5351--To prohibit the transfer of any individual detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
H.R. 5351, ``To prohibit the transfer of any individual
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba''
was introduced on May 26, 2016, by Representative Jackie
Walorski and was referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
The committee was discharged from consideration of the bill,
and pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 863, H.R. 5351 was
considered in the House under a closed rule on September 15,
2016. The resolution included an amendment to the bill printed
in part A of the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 114-744) that
was considered as adopted. H. Res. 863 also provided for one
hour of debate on H.R. 5351 equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services. On September 15, 2016, H.R. 5351 was passed in the
House by the yeas and nays, 244-174 (Roll no. 520). H.R. 5351
was received in the Senate on the same day. No further action
has been taken.
H.R. 5458--Veterans TRICARE Choice Act
H.R. 5458, the Veterans TRICARE Choice Act, was introduced
on June 13, 2016, by Representative Chris Stewart and was
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On June 15, 2016, the
Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means held
a markup session on H.R. 5458 and ordered it reported to the
full committee, as amended, by voice vote. On September 8,
2016, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on
H.R. 5458. On November 14, 2016, the Committee on Ways and
Means reported H.R. 5458, as amended, to the House (H. Rept.
114-809). The Committee on Armed Services waived consideration
of H.R. 5458, and was discharged on November 14, 2016. On
November 29, 2016, Representative Adrian Smith moved to
consider the bill, as amended, under suspension of the rules of
the House. The motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill,
as amended, was agreed to by voice vote. On November 30, 2016,
H.R. 5458 was received in the Senate. No further action has
been taken.
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, described below are actions taken and
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special
attention during the 114th Congress, as well as additional
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight
plan.
Policy Issues
NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY, NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY, AND RELATED
DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES
During the 114th Congress, the committee continued its
focus on the readiness, capability, and capacity of the U.S.
Armed Forces to defend the Nation's interests, on supporting
the authorities and resources necessary for ongoing military
operations, and on improving the agility and efficiency of the
Department of Defense. The National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as
well as the joint explanatory statements that accompany them,
are a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its
primary responsibilities as enumerated in the U.S.
Constitution.
The committee recognizes that the current threat
environment, as characterized by Dr. Henry Kissinger in January
2015, is ``more diverse and complex'' that at any point since
the end of the Second World War. Terrorism, including the
spread of violent extremism by the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant, instability in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
regional aggression by the Russian Federation, destabilizing
actions by the People's Republic of China in the South and East
China Seas, developments in nuclear and missile capabilities by
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic
Republic of Iran, and the continued spread of lethal and
disruptive technologies, will continue to threaten U.S.
national security interests. These events and other security
developments across the globe also serve to highlight the
continued need for the U.S. military to be postured and ready
to defend the Nation's interests and address security
challenges, wherever and whenever they may arise.
The committee continued its oversight of: ongoing military
operations where U.S. forces are in harm's way, including
ongoing global counterterrorism operations; strategic
reassurance and deterrence activities in Europe and the Asia-
Pacific; and Department of Defense investments in readiness,
capabilities, and infrastructure to ensure the U.S. Armed
Forces remain capable of addressing current and emerging
conventional and unconventional challenges. The committee
accomplished this oversight through numerous hearings and
briefings; engagements with defense leaders, military
commanders, diplomats, academics, and private sector experts;
and congressional delegation visits to military installations
and U.S. forces serving abroad.
The committee also focused on evaluating the Nation's
defense and military strategy, including the strategy outlined
in the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review,
released in 2014, and the subsequent independent National
Defense Panel review, to specifically include evaluating the
alignment of the strategy to the security environment and the
posture, capabilities, and resources necessary to execute the
strategy. The committee also evaluated the risk associated with
executing the strategy at current resource levels, particularly
the impact that defense cuts and sequestration have on strategy
execution.
S. 2943 emphasizes defense strategy reform. It would
eliminate the current Quadrennial Defense Review and replace it
with a requirement for a top-down driven National Defense
Strategy. It would also streamline and classify the National
Military Strategy, as well as require a classified National
Security Strategy.
FORCE PROTECTION
During the 114th Congress, the committee emphasized force
protection as a high priority issue for special oversight. The
committee particularly focused on areas having a direct impact
on the safety of military personnel engaged in the continued
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, as well as
the potential for attacks against U.S. troops deployed in
support of Operation Inherent Resolve emanating from the Iraqi
Security Forces (ISF), Shia militias, forces from the Islamic
Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation, and Assad regime
forces. The committee also closely monitored the contextual
factors that could lead to a change in the force protection
posture for U.S. forces.
The committee worked to expedite the promulgation of
policies and the fielding of technology and equipment that
prevented and/or reduced combat casualties, as well as
addressed the urgent operational needs of the global combatant
commands in a timely manner.
For all current overseas contingency operations, focus
areas included, but were not limited to: the policies for
management and acquisition of counter improvised explosive
device (IED) equipment throughout the force; persistent
surveillance, particularly prevention of IED emplacement;
actionable tactical intelligence processing, exploitation, and
dissemination capabilities in support of ground operations;
effective intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
equipment capabilities; capabilities to counter indirect fire
such as artillery and mortar munitions; lighter-weight,
properly resourced, and timely fielded quantities of personal
protection equipment, to include body armor, night vision
equipment, combat helmets, and flame-resistant combat uniforms;
vehicle armor, to include survivability improvements to the
combat and tactical vehicle fleets; improving current biometric
systems; and effective aircraft survivability equipment (ASE),
specifically ASE for the current rotorcraft fleets.
During the 114th Congress, the committee continued to
provide robust oversight and monitored ``insider attacks''
perpetrated by Afghan security forces against U.S. and
coalition personnel in Afghanistan. Additionally, the committee
continued its oversight of the steps the Department of Defense
is taking to understand, protect U.S. troops, and prevent such
attacks, to include: the motive of such attacks; the tactics,
techniques, and procedures leveraged by the attacker; the
impact of the attacks on the mission; and the procedures being
taken to mitigate for and, to the maximum extent possible,
prevent future ``insider attacks.''
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
classified briefing on September 29, 2015, that focused on the
global IED threat, to include the proliferation of the
explosively formed projectile threat, and ways to mitigate this
threat.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) authorized $438.8 million for the Joint IED
Defeat Fund. Public Law 114-92 also required the Secretary of
Defense to review the decision to transition the Joint IED
Defeat Organization (JIDO) to a new combat support agency as
part of the Office for the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Public Law 114-92
authorized an additional $110.0 million to address an Army
unfunded requirement to procure and develop improved
countermeasures to better protect deployed AH-64E helicopters
against the latest and most lethal threats.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, continued the
committee's ongoing activities related to force protection
efforts and management of the Joint Improvised Threat Defeat
Organization, and provided an additional $527.1 million for
military service rotorcraft and ASE upgrades. S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
includes several legislative provisions related to force
protection, countering IED threats, and the oversight of JIDO
including: an extension of authority for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Fund (JIEDDF); and an extension of
authority to use JIEDDF for training of foreign security forces
to defeat improvised explosive devices. S. 2943 also includes
additional oversight requirements to monitor JIDO as it
transitions under the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The committee continues to oversee military effectiveness
in this era of declining budgets. Reductions to defense
resources, to include mechanisms such as sequestration, could
affect the quality of the U.S. Armed Forces as the Department
of Defense looks to successfully perform its role in the
National Security Strategy.
The Comptroller General of the United States has
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department's
inability to track and account for billions of dollars in
funding and tangible assets continues to undermine its
management approach. It also creates a lack of transparency
that significantly limits congressional oversight. The
Department's inability to produce auditable financial
statements undermines its efforts to reform defense acquisition
processes and to realize efficiencies. Without these objective
tools, neither the Department nor Congress can verify that
greater value is being created. The committee, therefore,
continued to focus on the Department's efforts to implement the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements and to
closely monitor the interdependencies between FIAR and the
resources being spent on business systems modernization
programs that the Department has proposed to address its
financial management problems.
The committee received the statutorily mandated semi-annual
updates to the FIAR plan in May and November 2015 and 2016.
Supporting the Department's goal of achieving audit readiness
by the end of 2017, the committee encouraged the Secretary of
Defense to address the findings and recommendations identified
in the Department's latest FIAR Plan Status Report from
November 2015 and to continue improving the Department's audit
infrastructure and annual audit regimen.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee identified that the implementation of Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems was a critical element in the
military departments' audit readiness plans. Specifically, the
Army General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) supported
standardized Army financial management and accounting
practices, the Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (Navy ERP)
system standardized Navy financial management, and the Air
Force Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System
(DEAMS) provided a range of financial management capabilities
for the Air Force.
The committee noted that the successful implementation,
operation, and full utilization of GFEBS, Navy ERP, and DEAMS
were critical to the military departments' ability to produce
auditable statements and pass financial audits. The committee
therefore encouraged the Army, Navy, and Air Force to ensure
that full implementation, operation, and utilization of their
respective ERP systems remain on schedule. The Department's
Functional Management Office (FMO) is responsible for ensuring
these ERP systems allow the end user to produce auditable,
timely, and accurate reporting of all financial data. To
fulfill the FMO's requirements and to ensure that GFEBS, Navy
ERP, and DEAMS meet auditing standards, the committee noted
that the Department should leverage greater certified public
accountant expertise and Federal financial management
experience. In that regard, the committee stated that this
expertise and experience should be included in any follow-on
award of a contract for implementation of, or enhancement to,
GFEBS, Navy ERP, and DEAMS, to better ensure ERP system
success, compliance with all laws and regulations, and to meet
the functional needs of the financial user community.
U.S. MILITARY EFFORT IN AFGHANISTAN
The U.S. military effort in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan continues in three parts: training, advising, and
assisting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces;
conducting counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--Khorasan Province; and
executing force protection of U.S. personnel and facilities.
The committee has conducted robust oversight of Operation
Resolute Support, including the resourcing of the mission. The
committee is continuing to examine the stability of the
regional security environment and efforts to deny safe haven to
Al Qaeda, the Haqqani Network, and other terrorist
organizations.
The committee has held multiple hearings and briefings on
U.S. policy and operations in Afghanistan. Also, the committee
has conducted member and staff travel to Afghanistan and the
region to gain additional insight into these issues.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee fully
funded and provided all necessary authorities to support the
mission in Afghanistan.
OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE
The U.S. and coalition forces continue to conduct
operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL), known as Operation Inherent Resolve. As of December
2016, operations are underway to re-take Mosul, in the Republic
of Iraq, from ISIL and to isolate the city of Raqqa, in the
Syrian Arab Republic, which is an ISIL stronghold.
The committee has conducted oversight of these efforts,
including the application of resources, the effectiveness of
the campaign, and the stability plans following the military
campaign. The committee has held hearings and briefings on the
coalition military campaign, as well as the political and
sectarian dynamics in both Iraq and Syria that have in part
fostered the context and political climate for ISIL to expand
and grow. Additionally, the committee has sought expert views
and analysis from leading academics, retired military
officials, and former diplomats. Further, the committee has
regularly conducted travel to Iraq and the region to monitor
the operations and gain insights from allies and partners.
Additionally, the committee has monitored the stability of
the countries in the region of Iraq and Syria as well as the
U.S. effort to prevent the expansion of ISIL in the region.
The committee also has focused on the efforts to train and
equip the Iraqi Security Forces and the vetted elements of the
moderate Syrian opposition. The committee will continue to
examine and take legislative action to refine these efforts so
that they are successful and support the overall mission and
U.S. interests.
Finally, in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee
provided full funding and all necessary authorities to support
the missions in Iraq and Syria.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
The committee examined the President's military actions
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
including the legal underpinnings of such actions. To date, the
President has cited the Article II authority under the U.S.
Constitution as well as the 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force (Public Law 107-40) and the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public
Law 107-243) as the legal basis for U.S. military operations in
the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic.
The committee has studied Public Law 107-40 and Public Law
107-243, including a hearing in February 2016, with outside
experts, to inform consideration of any new authorization for
the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL, including
lessons learned from the implementation of Public Law 107-40
and Public Law 107-243 and how those AUMFs comport with the
evolving nature of the threat.
THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST
The Greater Middle East remained an area of focus for
committee oversight in the 114th Congress. This geographic area
includes countries in which the United States has invested, and
continues to invest, significant military resources.
Al Qaeda, its affiliates, its associated organizations, and
other terrorist organizations continue to leverage safehavens
in certain countries within this region to conduct operational
planning and to serve as launch points for attacks against the
United States, its allies and partners, and U.S. interests. As
a result, the committee conducted oversight of U.S. defense
policies, readiness, and military programs in this region
through congressional travel, multiple hearings and classified
briefings, and engagements with outside experts.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan
The committee continued to conduct oversight on the broad
range of security issues involving the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan and, given the critical U.S. military effort in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, carefully reviewed the use of
Coalition Support Funds (CSF), which are provided to reimburse
Pakistan for its support to U.S. military operations, and
security assistance to Pakistan.
The committee monitored the security and stability of
Pakistan, including the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons,
Pakistan's on-going and future nuclear weapon projects, and its
willingness and operational capacity to combat key terrorist
groups, such as Al Qaeda, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban, the
Haqqani network, and other terrorist organizations. Moreover,
the committee evaluated the terrorist activity emanating from
the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted
oversight of the Department of Defense's efforts to combat the
threat.
The committee took steps to update CSF authorization in S.
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017. Specifically, the CSF was revised to include additional
activities for reimbursement in support of Pakistan's
counterterrorism and internal security challenges. The
committee maintained limitations on CSF to Pakistan and will
continue to carefully scrutinize reimbursements to Pakistan in
accordance with the law.
Republic of Iraq
The U.S. military posture, strategy, and approach has
changed significantly within the Republic of Iraq. The on-going
U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant and the effort to re-train and re-build the Iraqi
Security Forces are the key efforts that has been the focus of
committee oversight in the 114th Congress.
Other areas of oversight focus within the U.S. military
campaign in Iraq included the employment of U.S. military
forces, the effectiveness of the air campaign, and the
robustness of enabler support. The committee also has closely
monitored the political situation in Iraq.
The committee held several hearings and received numerous
briefings on Iraq, ranging from intelligence and operational
updates, to policy and strategy reviews with Department of
Defense officials and outside experts.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee provided
authorization and full funding for the Iraq Train and Equip
Fund. Additionally, the committee re-authorized the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq and provided other authorities for
the commander such as the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program for ex gratia payments.
Islamic Republic of Iran
The committee conducted oversight of U.S. national security
policy and strategy with respect to the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, placing particular emphasis on Iran's
nuclear program and capabilities. During the 114th Congress,
the committee also monitored the threat posed by Iran's
ballistic missile capabilities, its malign activities in the
region, and its support to proxy terrorist organizations and
militias, such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia militias.
The committee has conducted oversight of the implementation
of the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action (CJPOA) between the
P5+1 (the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the
People's Republic of China, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, and the Federal
Republic of Germany) and Iran, including Iran's fulfillment of
its commitments under the CJPOA.
Finally, the committee continued to monitor the strategic
orientation, operational capacity, and goals of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards Corps. The committee also focused its
attention towards Iran's Quds Force, including the activities
of the Quds Force in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of
Iraq, and the region.
In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee took
steps to review U.S. military posture within the Arabian Gulf
region and to understand Iran's use of commercial entities for
illicit military activities.
Syrian Arab Republic
The committee conducted oversight into the evolving
security and humanitarian situation inside the Syrian Arab
Republic, as well as the effects of the on-going conflict on
its neighbors, including the Republic of Turkey, the Islamic
Republic of Iran, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic
of Iraq, and the Lebanese Republic. Additionally, the committee
monitored the U.S. and coalition military operations in Syria
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as part
of Operation Inherent Resolve.
The committee held several hearings and received numerous
briefings on Syria, ranging from intelligence and operational
updates to policy and strategy reviews with Department of
Defense officials and outside experts.
The committee reviewed the U.S. policy and approach against
the Assad regime. Further, the committee focused on the
movement of fighters to and from Syria, including the capacity
and relative strength of ISIL and other terrorist groups acting
in Syria.
Finally, the committee conducted oversight of the effort to
train and equip the moderate elements of the vetted Syrian
opposition and the deployment and positioning of military
personnel and resources to the region to address this issue
set. In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee re-
authorized the Syria Train and Equip program. The committee
maintained the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to
reprogram monies for this program in order to maintain close
congressional oversight of this effort.
Republic of Yemen
The security situation in the Republic of Yemen was a
significant focus for the committee. The committee maintained
its oversight of the U.S. military's counterterrorism
activities in Yemen, the United States' support to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, and the status of coalition efforts to counter
Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The committee also monitored the capability, capacity, and
strategy of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to conduct
transnational terrorist attacks and the associated U.S.
counterterrorism efforts against AQAP.
The committee conducted congressional travel to the region
and engaged with allies and partners in the region to gain more
clarity into the regional dynamics and coalition effort in
Yemen.
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has dealt Al
Qaeda repeated and significant blows during the global war on
terrorism. Despite many notable successes, Al Qaeda, as well as
its adherents and affiliates, remains active in areas of
importance to the United States, including: the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan; the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; the
Islamic Republic of Iraq; the Federal Republic of Somalia; and
the Republic of Yemen. The committee continued to conduct
oversight, often in classified form, over terrorism issues,
with particular attention to special operations capabilities,
and the changing nature of Al Qaeda's organization, affiliates,
and its operations, as well as threats being posed by the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The committee
continued to focus on efforts to build partner nation
counterterrorism and conventional warfare capabilities to
counter these threats at the regional and local level. As the
United States strengthened and built partnership capacity with
key allies around the globe, the committee remained focused on
the Department of Defense's efforts to aggressively fight the
global war on terror and counter radicalism in places of
concern, such as Pakistan, Yemen, the Horn of Africa, North
Africa, and threats posed by groups such as the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant. Ensuring security and stability in
volatile regions that cannot adequately govern themselves or
secure their own territory remained a top priority for the
committee.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities held several related hearings in this area
including: a hearing on March 18, 2015, ``Special Operations
Forces in an Uncertain Threat Environment: A Review of the
Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for U.S. Special Operations
Command''; a hearing on March 25, 2015, ``Countering Weapons of
Mass Destruction (CWMD) Strategy and the Fiscal Year 2016
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense
Program''; a hearing on June 24, 2015, ``The Counterterrorism
Strategy Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL): Are We on the Right Path?''; a hearing on March 1,
2016, ``Outside Views on Special Operations Forces in an
Evolving Threat Environment as a Review of the Fiscal Year 2017
Budget Request for U.S. Special Operations Command''; and a
joint hearing on June 9, 2016, with the Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs, ``Stopping the Money Flow: The War on
Terror Finance.''
Similarly, the committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats and Capabilities held several classified and/or closed
briefings and roundtables including: a roundtable on February
5, 2015, ``Understanding Today's Challenges and Tomorrow's
Threats to U.S. National Security''; a briefing on February 26,
2015, ``Quarterly Update on Counterterrorism Operations and
Intelligence''; a briefing on June 17, 2015, ``Quarterly Update
on Counterterrorism Operations and Intelligence''; a roundtable
on September 10, 2015, ``A Roundtable Discussion on Iranian
Irregular Warfare Threats''; a briefing on October 8, 2015,
``Quarterly Update on Counterterrorism Operations and
Intelligence;'' a briefing on January 8, 2016, ``Understanding
and Preventing Emerging 21st Century Threats''; a briefing on
May 26, 2016, ``Counterterrorism Operations and Intelligence'';
a joint briefing on July 12, 2016, with the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, ``Department of Defense Human
Intelligence Capabilities--The Defense Clandestine Service:
Organizational History and Proposed Changes''; and a briefing
on November 30, 2016, ``Update on Cyber Operations Support to
Counterterrorism.'' The committee continued additional
classified oversight functions on a recurring basis, including
issue-driven updates via secure communications with senior
Department of Defense officials on current activities, most
notably in cyber and global counterterrorism operations.
Committee members and staff also conducted oversight by
traveling overseas on congressional delegations and staff
delegations to the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of
Turkey, the State of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, the
Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Djibouti, the Republic of
Niger, the Kingdom of Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic
of Algeria, and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included several legislative provisions
related to the global war on terrorism, counterterrorism,
special operations forces, and sensitive activities. These
included: a section that would make permanent the authority for
the Secretary of Defense to offer and make rewards to a person
providing information or nonlethal assistance to U.S.
Government personnel or government personnel of allied forces
participating in a combined operation with U.S. Armed Forces
conducted outside the United States against international
terrorism or providing such information or assistance that is
beneficial to force protection associated with such an
operation; a section that would increase from $75.0 million to
$85.0 million the authority for support of special operations
to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the Ronald
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(Public Law 108-375); a section that would extend by 1 year,
the authority for non-conventional assisted recovery
capabilities for conventional and special operations forces
pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81); a briefing on the shallow water combat
submersible program; a modification to congressional
notification procedures of sensitive military operations;
congressional notification requirements related to facilities
for intelligence collection or for special operations abroad;
prohibition on use of funds for retirement of helicopter sea
combat squadron 84 and 85 aircraft; the establishment of an
Interagency Hostage Recovery Coordinator; a requirement for a
Department of Defense strategy for countering unconventional
warfare; and modification for Department of Defense
capabilities to respond to situations involving bombings of
places of public use, Government facilities, public
transportation systems, and infrastructure facilities.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions related to
the use of force in counterterrorism operations and the global
war on terrorism including: an increase in frequency of defense
committee counterterrorism operations briefings from quarterly
to monthly; modifications to section 130f of title 10, United
States Code, congressional notification of sensitive military
operations, to strengthen oversight and notification
requirements; an extension and modification of authority for
support of special operations to combat terrorism; modification
of the Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship program;
an extension and modification of authority for non-conventional
assisted recovery capabilities; changes to the Department of
Defense for management of special operations forces and special
operations; and a modification and extension of authority to
provide assistance to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant.
AFRICA
The committee conducted regular oversight on Department of
Defense activities in Africa. The committee continued to
examine the Department's coordination within the interagency to
address the range of activities that are occurring in Africa.
The committee devoted particular attention to the Department's
implementation of the global train and equip authority codified
in the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291) and the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund (CTPF)
authorized by Public Law 113-291. As the Department's reliance
on training and equipping African partners to provide regional
security has increased, the committee focused on the
Department's execution of train and equip programs, the
development of defense institutions in African nations, and the
ability of African partner nations to absorb and sustain the
assistance provided. The committee's oversight of the
Department's programs and activities in Africa contributed to
the committee's measures to reform security cooperation
authorities, as described elsewhere in this report.
The committee focused its oversight on the broad range of
security challenges across the African continent, including the
tenuous security situation in Libya and violence from terrorist
organizations and their affiliates such as the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant in North Africa, Boko Haram in the Lake
Chad region, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in the western
Sahel, and Al Shabaab in the Horn of Africa. S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would
require the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive
strategy for U.S. defense interests in Africa to enable the
Department to address and plan for these challenges. The
committee held a hearing and conducted discussions with outside
experts on Islamic extremism in January and February 2015, and
received numerous staff-level briefings on security threats
throughout the continent.
Specifically to North Africa, the committee received
Member- and staff-level briefings on the threat of the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant, which presents a significant
threat to the region, particularly in Libya. The Joint
Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 1356, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Committee Print
No. 2) noted the importance of a secure and stable Tunisian
Republic to counter the threat posed by the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant and other terrorist organizations in North
Africa and encouraged the provision of U.S. assistance to
Tunisia. Additionally, the committee conducted oversight on the
Department of Defense's implementation of the lessons learned
from the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, including, but not
limited to, interagency coordination, positioning of military
assets, threat perception, threat analysis, intelligence
sharing, operational coordination, and crisis response in the
``new normal'' operational environment.
With respect to East Africa, the committee received
numerous staff-level briefings on military operations in the
Federal Republic of Somalia to counter the threat from Al
Shabaab, particularly given the increased resources devoted to
the development of Somali security forces. The committee
remained focused on the threat from Al Shabaab, as well as the
steps that the Department is taking to counter this group and
prevent transnational terrorist attacks on the United States,
its allies and partners, and its interests. Moreover, the
committee continued to monitor the overlapping ideological,
strategic, and operational coordination between Horn of Africa
terrorist groups, such as Al Shabaab, and terrorist groups on
the Arabian Peninsula, such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula.
The committee continued its oversight of threats in West
Africa. The committee paid particular attention to the
continuing ideological, strategic, and operational evolution of
Boko Haram and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The Joint
Explanatory Statement to Accompany S. 1356, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Committee Print
No. 2) required the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State to submit a report on the threat of Boko Haram and the
efforts taken to counter this threat. Additionally, the
committee maintained its oversight of Operation United
Assistance until its conclusion in May 2015, receiving regular
briefs on the status of the operation, safety measures, and the
transition of the Department of Defense's mission to other
Government agencies.
In Central Africa, the committee continued its oversight of
the Department of Defense's activities to support the Uganda
Peoples' Defense Force and other national militaries to counter
the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and apprehend or remove Joseph
Kony. The committee received multiple staff-level briefings on
the transition of the counter-LRA effort, as required in the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
EUROPE
In the past two years, there has been a shift in U.S.
security and foreign policy towards Europe. In 2016, the
Secretary of Defense characterized Russia as the number one
strategic threat. European security has also been shaped by
continued threats from terrorism, including from returning
foreign fighters currently in the Republic of Iraq and the
Syrian Arab Republic fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant, and a refugee crisis of immigrants fleeing violence
in the Middle East and Africa.
The committee's primary emphasis in this area has been to
oversee the U.S. military policy and strategy, programs, and
resources necessary to effectively deter and defend against
Russian aggression. As the committee learned in multiple
hearings and briefings, and from visits to military
installations and training facilities, there is a recognition
among the military services that, after 15 years focused on
counterterrorism operations in the greater Middle East, the
readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces vis-a-vis a near-peer
challenger has eroded.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, increase resources for
the European Reassurance Initiative, which includes funding the
deployment of a rotational Army Brigade Combat Team to increase
U.S. military presence in Europe, preposition equipment,
training and exercises, and intelligence capabilities.
The committee also continues to monitor contributions that
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries provide to
regional and global security, including the deployment of
approximately 3,000 personnel to the NATO-led Operation
Resolute Support mission in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, and how those contributions complement U.S. forces
and capabilities. In particular, the committee continues to
monitor the outcomes announced at NATO's 2014 Wales and 2016
Warsaw summits, and how such outcomes will be implemented with
available resources.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation continues to maintain an assertive
foreign policy, particularly evident in Ukraine and the Syrian
Arab Republic. Russian military activity, and its employment of
unconventional and conventional warfare tactics, particularly
in Central and Eastern Europe and in Syria, was a primary area
of concern for the committee in the 114th Congress. After 15
years primarily focused on counterterrorism operations in the
greater Middle East, the committee recognized that a greater
emphasis addressing near-peer capabilities and deterrence was
necessary. Thus, the committee's oversight has focused on the
U.S. military capabilities, capacity, posture, and readiness
needed to effectively counter and deter Russia.
The Department of Defense's European Reassurance
Initiative, and the resources associated with it, was a
significant area of oversight for the committee. The committee
sought to ensure that the increased resources were being
effectively applied against valid requirements. The committee
also maintained oversight of Department of Defense resources
and tools allocated to building the capacity of Ukraine and
other NATO allies and partners to deter and defend against
further Russian aggression.
During the 114th Congress, the committee received several
intelligence briefings on Russia's military modernization
programs, its combat actions and objectives in Syria, and its
continued aggression in Ukraine. The committee held hearings on
February 25, 2015, and February 25, 2016, with the commander of
U.S. European Command, to inform its deliberations on the
fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 national defense
authorization acts, respectively. The committee also held a
hearing on February 10, 2016, with outside experts, to examine
Russian motives and strategies and its implications for U.S.
policy and strategy, entitled ``Understanding and Deterring
Russia: U.S. Policies and Strategies.'' Additionally, for the
first time in recent years, the committee participated in a
Defense Intelligence Agency-led senior leader seminar to
examine the complex challenges associated with Russia.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) contained several provisions to bolster the
deterrence and defense capabilities of the United States and
its allies and partners in Europe, to include authorizing
$789.0 million for the European Reassurance Initiative, $300.0
million for security assistance, equipment, and training to
Ukrainian forces, and additional types of training for Eastern
European partners. Public Law 114-92 also limited military
cooperation between the United States and Russia, and required
the Department to examine U.S. troop levels and the posturing
of defense materiel in Europe.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, continued, and in some cases enhanced, many of the
provisions from fiscal year 2016. These include authorizing an
increase in funds for the renamed European Deterrence
Initiative, $350.0 million for security assistance, equipment,
and training to Ukraine, and an increase in U.S. military
presence and prepositioned equipment in Europe.
ASIA
The committee continued to oversee the Department of
Defense's implementation of the U.S. policy to ``rebalance'' to
the Asia-Pacific region. In particular, the committee monitored
the Department's strategy, force posture, capability needs, and
readiness in the region to ensure that U.S. forces are properly
resourced and postured to protect U.S. national security
interests.
The People's Republic of China continues its unilateral
efforts to assert regional influence, particularly in the South
and East China Seas, while also continuing to modernize its
military. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea continues
to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, and
in 2016 alone, has significantly increased its volume of
missile tests and conducted two nuclear tests. The committee
monitored these and other emerging developments to inform its
views and actions to shape U.S. national security policy,
strategy, and defense investments for the region.
These security challenges have led the United States to
strengthen its relationships with traditional treaty allies
while also forging new relationships, particularly with
partners in Southeast Asia. The committee continued to closely
oversee the Department of Defense's efforts to implement a
range of posture, force structure, and engagement initiatives
in the region, including rotational deployments of Marines,
naval, and air assets; forward pre-positioning; infrastructure
realignments; training and exercises; and security cooperation
programs.
During the 114th Congress, the committee received
intelligence briefings on China's military modernization
programs and its island construction and military-related
activities in the South China Sea, as well as on North Korea's
nuclear and missile developments. The committee also engaged
with defense and economic experts from the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission regarding their annual report to
Congress.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, authorizes the South China Sea Initiative to
increase maritime security and maritime domain awareness of
foreign countries along the South China Sea. In S. 2943, the
committee supported senior military exchanges between the
United States and Taiwan, authorizes an annual report on U.S.
Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), authorizes
additional reporting requirements in the China Military Power
Report on the order of battle of the People's Liberation Army
and Chinese military activities in the South China Sea, and
authorizes funding for the Southeast Asia Maritime Security
Initiative.
CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA
The committee continued to oversee the programs and
policies of the Department of Defense related to Central and
South America. In particular, the committee maintained
oversight of programs relating to the Republic of Colombia and
the Northern Triangle of Central America, including the
Republic of Honduras, the Republic of Guatemala and the
Republic of El Salvador. The committee paid particular
attention to how violence related to transnational organized
crime affected security and stability in the region.
The committee hosted discussions with U.S. military
commanders and foreign ambassadors to better understand the
regional security environment, the budget and priorities of
U.S. Southern Command, and key regional developments such as
the peace process in Colombia.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included several provisions that would
reauthorize Department of Defense counternarcotics authorities
for Colombia, authorize additional funding for defense programs
in Central America, and authorize additional funding for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for U.S.
Southern Command.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes several provisions that would reauthorize
Department of Defense counternarcotics authorities for Colombia
and provides funding to address the de-mining initiative in
Colombia.
SECURITY COOPERATION
Throughout the 114th Congress, the committee paid
significant attention to the Department of Defense efforts in
building partner capacity (BPC) and security cooperation. The
committee's focus on these activities led to comprehensive
reform of the authorities, funding, programs, and oversight of
security cooperation.
The committee conducted ``BPC Week'' from October 20 to
October 22, 2015, which included a ``Security Cooperation 101''
roundtable led by the Congressional Research Service, an open
committee hearing with outside witnesses, and a closed,
classified committee briefing with Administration officials.
Additionally, the committee received numerous staff-level
briefings. The committee continued to monitor and assess the
execution of BPC authorities, both during the initial
congressional notification process and while those programs
were in progress. The committee also conducted oversight of the
Counterterrorism Partnership Fund allocations toward BPC
activities.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included numerous provisions addressing the
committee's concerns about BPC. Public Law 114-92 required the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to develop and issue to the Department of Defense a
strategic framework for Department of Defense security
cooperation to guide prioritization of resources and
activities. Public Law 114-92 extended for 1 year the funding
limitations for the existing train and equip authority
(formerly referred to as ``section 1206''), modified the
National Guard State Partnership Program, extended the
authority for non-reciprocal exchanges of defense personnel
between the United States and foreign countries, authorized the
Secretary of Defense to provide training and support to
personnel of foreign ministries of defense, and required the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide semi-
annual reports to Congress on the military intelligence
training of foreign personnel.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, would further reform security cooperation by:
creating a new security cooperation chapter in United States
Code to combine and codify numerous authorities and funding
sources; consolidating and simplifying multiple, disparate
authorities; combining numerous existing authorities to train
and equip security forces of foreign countries into one
consolidated authority; requiring an annual consolidated budget
for security cooperation programs and activities; rationalizing
the coordination between the Department of Defense and the
Department of State, including joint development and planning
to ensure security cooperation programs align with foreign
policy objectives; requiring the Department of Defense develop
a program of assessment, monitoring, and evaluation to improve
security cooperation program outcomes; consolidating
congressional notification and reporting requirements to
improve oversight and transparency; requiring rigorous
standards to improve the quality of the security cooperation
workforce while improving career progression opportunities; and
mandating a quadrennial review of security sector assistance
programs and authorities and an independent assessment of the
Department's security cooperation programs. Additionally, S.
2943 would increase the obligation authority of the Special
Defense Acquisition Fund to $2.5 billion, while requiring that
$500.0 million of the fund may only be used for precision
guided munitions that may be required by partner and allied
forces to enhance the effectiveness of their contribution to
overseas contingency operations conducted or supported by the
United States. The committee will continue to conduct oversight
of security cooperation programs and funding to ensure the
Department of Defense appropriately institutes the reforms
included in S. 2943.
Related to BPC and security cooperation, the committee also
conducted oversight of the parts of the Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) program that are executed by the Department of Defense.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held hearings on FMS on May 11,
2016, and May 17, 2016, and conducted a Member-level briefing
on April 20, 2016. As required by the committee report (H.
Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
act for Fiscal Year 2016, and by the committee report (H. Rept.
114-537) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017, the Department of Defense provided two
briefings to committee staff on improvements to the FMS
process. Additionally, the committee received numerous other
staff-level briefings on the FMS program. S. 2943 would require
the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to require
the use of firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military
sales and would require that contracts in support of FMS cases
meet a 180-day definitization requirement.
INTELLIGENCE
In the 114th Congress, the committee continued to monitor
the reorganization of the Intelligence Community through
implementation of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458) and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence position authorized by
the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). The committee held hearings and
briefings to examine resource allocation for intelligence-
related programs for effectiveness and affordability; defense
intelligence strategies and policies in consideration of
current and anticipated future threats; organization and
management of the elements of the Department of Defense that
are part of the Intelligence Community; and the consideration
and prioritization of defense intelligence requirements across
the Intelligence Community. These included hearings and
briefings on ``The Present and Future State of Defense
Intelligence,'' ``World Wide Threats,'' ``The Defense Human
Intelligence (HUMINT) Enterprise,'' ``The Intelligence
Community's Use of Social Media,'' and ``Counterintelligence:
The Enemy is Watching and Listening,'' along with other current
intelligence and programmatic updates.
Additionally, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities conducted several classified member briefings
covering intelligence support to counterterrorism,
counterproliferation, and cyber operations, as well as
intelligence support for science and technology investments.
DETAINEE POLICY, MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND RELATED MATTERS
The committee continued its oversight of detainee policy,
including detainees held in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
and at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(GTMO).
With respect to detainees held in Afghanistan, the
committee continued to focus on the intelligence provided by
the Government of Afghanistan from detainees under their
control and the implications for U.S. intelligence and
operations associated with the current U.S. policy to not
detain combatants in Afghanistan.
With respect to detainees held at GTMO, the committee
continued to monitor transfer and release policies and
practices, as well as the use of the Military Commissions Act
(Public Law 109-366; Public Law 111-84) that established the
current legal framework governing the operation of military
tribunals to try detainees for war crimes and codified some of
the procedural rights of GTMO detainees. The chairwoman of the
Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigation led a
congressional delegation of five other committee Members to
GTMO in February 2015, to observe the detention operations
first-hand and to be briefed on the detention facility's
operations. Furthermore, the committee received Member-level
GTMO transfer updates on February 12, 2015, March 24, 2015,
April 14, 2015, June 11, 2015, June 8, 2016, and September 15,
2016, in addition to numerous staff-level briefings on
transfers of GTMO detainees. The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) reenacted and
modified certain prior requirements relating to the transfer of
GTMO detainees to foreign countries; required the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report setting forth the details of a
comprehensive strategy for the detention of current and future
individuals captured and held pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); prohibited the use
of fiscal year 2016 funds made available to the Department of
Defense for the realignment of forces at or closure of GTMO;
and prohibited until December 31, 2016, the transfer of GTMO
detainees to the United States, the construction or
modification of facilities in the United States to house GTMO
detainees, and the transfer of GTMO detainees to Libya, the
Federal Republic of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the
Republic of Yemen. Public Law 114-92 also required new reports
on current GTMO detainees determined to be high or medium risk,
on contact between terrorists and former GTMO detainees, about
recidivism of former GTMO detainees, on terms of written
agreements with foreign countries regarding transfers of GTMO
detainees, and on the use of GTMO and other Department of
Defense or Bureau of Prisons prisons or detention or
disciplinary facilities in recruitment or other propaganda of
terrorist organizations. S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would extend until
December 31, 2017, the prohibitions on transfer of GTMO
detainees to the United States, the construction or
modification of facilities in the United States to house GTMO
detainees, and the transfer of GTMO detainees to Libya, the
Federal Republic of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the
Republic of Yemen.
Taliban Five Transfer
As described elsewhere in this report, the chairman of the
House Committee on Armed Services and the chairwoman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations issued a report on
the inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 transfer
to the State of Qatar of five law-of-war detainees in
connection with the recovery of a captive U.S. Army sergeant.
The report included dissenting views of the ranking member of
the House Committee on Armed Services and the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
This work was the continuation of activities directed to be
undertaken in 2014 by the previous chairman of the committee.
The mandated task was to inquire into the rationale for the
transfer, the process by which the transfer decision was made,
the national security implications of the transfer, and related
topics. In the course of the investigation, the committee
conducted transcribed interviews of 16 Department officials
involved in or knowledgeable of the transfer and related
events. The subcommittee also received more than 4,000 pages of
classified and unclassified documents from the Department of
Defense and other agencies, reviewed classified video footage,
conducted a staff oversight trip to Qatar, and facilitated two
congressional delegations to United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES
During the 114th Congress, the committee reviewed the
recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the
Army to allow for an independent review of the roles, missions
and balance of the Reserve Component and Active Component of
the Army for the future. Given the uncertainty of the current
and projected fiscal environment, the availability of equipment
needed to sustain and modernize the National Guard and Reserve
Components as an operational Reserve and for their domestic
support missions, to include legacy aircraft as part of the
Aerospace Control Alert mission, remains a concern. The
committee also focused oversight efforts on current equipment
investment strategies for the National Guard and Reserve
Components with particular emphasis on affordability and
modernization of critical dual-use equipment platforms that are
essential to the National Guard's title 32 mission, defense
support to civil authorities. Furthermore, the committee
continued to monitor and evaluate the obligation and execution
rates of funds provided as part of a separate procurement
account, entitled the National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Account, which would be used to address equipment shortfalls
for the National Guard and Reserve Components.
JOINT TASK FORCE ON U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND
On December 11, 2015, the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services designated Representative Brad Wenstrup of Ohio
to serve as his representative on a three-member Joint Task
Force charged with investigating allegations that intelligence
analysis had been improperly manipulated in 2014 and early 2015
at U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The Joint Task Force's other
members were a majority party member of the Subcommittee on
Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations and a majority
party member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. Majority staff of the Committee on Armed Services
assisted Representative Wenstrup in his assignment.
Representative Wenstrup and/or majority staff conducted 15
transcribed interviews (totaling almost 1,500 pages and nearly
40 hours) of relevant uniformed and civilian personnel of
varying grades or rank at CENTCOM. One congressional delegation
and one staff delegation were also undertaken to CENTCOM
headquarters to gather information, and the Joint Task Force
members and/or staff reviewed more than 2,000 pages of
documents produced by the Department of Defense. On August 10,
2016, the Joint Task Force released a 17-page report of its
work to date entitled ``Initial Findings of the House of
Representatives Joint Task Force on U.S. Central Command
Intelligence Analysis.''
Defense Reform
OVERVIEW
In the 114th Congress, the committee prioritized defense
reform to create greater agility, accountability, and
responsiveness within the Department of Defense, and to get
more value for the tax payer dollar. The committee's reform
efforts were focused in four principal areas: acquisition;
compensation and benefits (including healthcare and
commissaries); Uniform Code of Military Justice; and personnel,
organization and management.
In these areas, the committee conducted numerous hearings
and briefings; held discussions with experts from across
defense, academia, and the private sector; traveled to military
installations, industry facilities, and other relevant sites;
and conducted its own independent research and analysis to
inform major legislative reform packages carried in both the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2017.
ACQUISITION ISSUES
The Acquisition System and Acquisition Policy
The committee continued its ongoing effort to improve the
agility of the Department of Defense acquisition system and the
environment (i.e., human resources, culture, statutes,
regulations, and processes) driving acquisition choices in the
Department, industry, and Congress. In undertaking this effort,
the committee solicited input from industry, academia, the
Department, and others during the 113th Congress, and continued
to engage these stakeholders during the 114th Congress. The
committee also continued with a series of hearings, briefings,
and roundtable discussions in the 114th Congress to receive
testimony from key acquisition leaders and experts.
The committee remains concerned that the Department's
conventional acquisition system is not sufficiently agile to
support warfighter demands. On average, major defense
acquisition programs operate for 9 years before yielding new
capabilities. Requirements determination, budgeting, and
contracting can each take another 2 years or more before
programs begin. Meanwhile, technological change has been
rapidly generating new, and often unforeseeable, innovations.
Global threats are evolving even more quickly, with adversaries
leveraging new technologies to exploit gaps in our military
capabilities. The conventional acquisition system simply does
not enable capabilities to be delivered to warfighters fast
enough. The committee has concluded that the current
acquisition system costs too much, takes too long, and the
troops simply do not get enough out of it.
The committee notes that this persistent lack of agility
derives in part from the basic incentives embedded in the
requirements, acquisition, budget, and oversight processes.
Weapon system requirements must be set anticipating technology
that will be available after years of development, so
requirements are naturally optimistic. Optimism carries with it
substantial technical risk, which leads the acquisition system
to make short-term, cost-savings decisions that reduce
flexibility and increase long-term costs. Budget timelines and
oversight committees require the military services to provide
detailed budget justifications, even though such details then
limit the services' ability to pursue new technological
innovations after funds are appropriated. Then in response to
acquisition shortcomings, both Congress and the Department have
imposed new layers of bureaucratic management and special
authorities to circumvent the conventional acquisition process.
While the committee recognizes that there are no ``silver
bullet'' reform packages that can immediately fix the current
acquisition system in a holistic manner, the committee built on
initial reforms included in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), by incorporating
several provisions in S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, aimed at addressing
many of the identified shortcomings. Of note, S. 2943 includes
provisions that would:
(1) Require modular open systems approaches (MOSA) for new
weapon systems after January 1, 2019. MOSA creates
opportunities for more rapid updates of components, insertion
of new technology, and responses to emerging threats.
(2) Authorize new budgetary flexibility for military
services to experiment with new technology and prototype weapon
system components, while providing $225.0 million to the
military departments in the Rapid Prototyping Fund and
excluding associated prototyping projects from major defense
acquisition program cost baselines. Experimentation is
consistent with best practice and avoids years of requirements
and budgeting process. Service prototyping boards and
congressional reporting would enable effective oversight.
(3) Require the Secretary of Defense to establish cost and
schedule targets at program initiation, and requires technology
to be developed in major defense acquisition programs only if
such development will not delay the program.
(4) Delegate additional acquisition program management to
the senior acquisition executives of the military departments,
rather than the Office of the Secretary of Defense, while
further reinforcing the role and responsibilities of the
military service chiefs in identifying performance requirements
(including tradeoffs between cost, schedule, technical
feasibility, and performance) of major defense acquisition
programs.
(5) Refocus the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on
identifying capability gaps, validating that proposed weapon
systems fulfill capability gaps, and approving only truly joint
performance requirements, such as interoperability.
(6) Establish an ``Acquisition Scorecard'' that pulls
exclusively from existing reports to provide departmental and
congressional leadership with key decision metrics from both
program offices and from independent assessors. Improvements in
transparency will strengthen risk management and oversight of
major defense acquisition programs and addresses concerns of a
lack of awareness of risk and weaknesses in risk management.
(7) Direct the establishment of an enterprise data system
for acquisition program cost data, expands the scope of
programs on which cost data is collected, and standardizes cost
data to facilitate analysis.
(8) Align intellectual property rights to MOSA and
rebalance those rights to ensure the Government maintains
access to needed technical data while encouraging companies to
do business with the Department.
Defense Industrial Base and Technology Transfers
The committee continued examination of the health,
security, competitiveness, and innovative capacity of the
defense industrial base. The committee recognizes that the
industrial base for complex major weapons systems and other
services has become more fragile, with both large contractors
consolidating and small contractors leaving the government
marketplace. A less competitive industrial base limits the
ability of the Department of Defense to control costs and
encourage innovation. The committee therefore incorporated
several provisions in S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, aimed at reducing
barriers and costs of participating in the Federal marketplace,
that would:
(1) Require the Cost Account Board to meet and reduce
differences between Government cost accounting standards and
private-sector Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, while
allowing private-sector auditors to certify contractor business
systems that are required by Government cost accounting.
(2) Treat services offered by non-traditional contractors
as commercial items, which reduces the Government-unique
overhead on such contractors.
(3) Focus the initial selection of contractors on multiple-
award contracts on technical qualifications, with price and
value evaluated only for subsequent task orders, while raising
the protest threshold for Department of Defense task orders
from $10.0 million to $25.0 million.
(4) Adopt several provisions to strengthen and enhance the
role of small businesses in the industrial base.
Information Technology and Business Systems
Information technology (IT) systems are critical enablers
for the Department of Defense. As the IT budget represents
nearly $32 billion of the Department of Defense's total budget,
it also represents a major investment area requiring the same
rigorous planning, analysis, and oversight as any other complex
major weapon system. The Department recognized this area as a
source of greater efficiencies, and has managed to reduce
spending in IT by several billion dollars across the Future
Years Defense Program. It remains to be seen if these
reductions are driving any real change in how the Department
does business, or whether those reductions are made with any
strategic plan in mind.
The committee continued to review the Department's IT
investment planning and review processes, as well as specific
acquisitions, to improve the ability to identify and reduce
unwarranted duplication and eliminate programs of little value
to the warfighter. The committee has paid particular attention
to how the Department leverages the commercial marketplace, as
well as the various IT systems of the Department where
egregious programmatic failures have been made to provide
lessons for future acquisitions. The committee has focused on
how the IT investments of the Department will contribute to
future warfighting capability, and support a defensible
architecture that is resilient to cyber attacks, while
maintaining the command and control to support mission needs.
The committee held related hearings on February 25, 2015,
``Information Technology Investments and Programs: Supporting
Current Operations and Planning for the Future Threat
Environment''; and a hearing on March 22, 2016, ``Fiscal Year
2017 Information Technology and Cyber Programs for Foundations
for a Secure Warfighting Network.''
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee included several reporting requirements related to
information technology, including a report on plans for
expansion of the Civil Support Team Information Management
Systems, and a report by the Comptroller General of the United
States assessing the Department of Defense's actions and
measures to address the risk of losing access to its current
source of trusted leading-edge microelectronics.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included: a provision that revises section
2222 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
responsibilities for the management of defense business
systems; a provision that amended chapter 21 of title 10,
United States Code, by adding a new section that would require
the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official of the
Department of Defense to act as an executive agent for open
source intelligence tools; a provision that limits the
availability of funds for the Army's Distributed Common Ground
System to 75 percent of the funds authorized to be obligated by
the program until the Secretary of the Army conducts a review
of the program planning; a provision that limits the
availability of funds for the Special Operations Command's
Distributed Common Ground System to 75 percent of the funds
authorized to be obligated by the program until the Commander,
U.S. Special Operations Command conducts a review of the
program planning; a provision that requires an assessment of
open technology standards applicable to Department of Defense
procurements for IT systems; a provision that requires the
Department of Defense to conduct a business case analysis to
determine the most cost effective and efficient way to acquire
common network services; a provision that requires a cloud
strategy for a secret level of classified information and the
Secret Internet Protocol network; a provision that modifies the
requirements applicable to a major automated information system
program that fails to achieve a full development decision
within 5 years; and a provision that limits the authority of
the Secretary of the Army to obligate more than 75 percent of
the total authorized amount of fiscal year 2016 program funds
for the Integrated Personnel and Pay System-Army until a report
is provided on the program.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included a provision
that would limit the availability of funds for cryptographic
systems and key management infrastructure programs until the
Department reports of the coordination of such efforts.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee included several reporting requirements related to
information technology, including: a briefing on the roadmap
for development and fielding of the open architecture version
of the Distributed Common Ground System for the Air Force; a
briefing on the analysis of the human capital needs of the
Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer; a briefing on
the Department's use of information technology asset tracking
technology; a briefing on the status of the implementation of
the current Cloud Access Program; a briefing on the best
practices and lessons learned for use and configuration for the
Host Based Security System; a briefing on how insider threat
capabilities are planned to be integrated into the Joint
Information Environment; a strategic plan for the Defense
Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center; and a briefing
on the Secretary of Defense's plans to ensure a continued
domestic source of strategic-hardened trusted microelectronics.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes: a provision that would require
modifications to the training and fielding plan for the
currently fielded version of the Army's Distributed Common
Ground System; a provision that would require the restructuring
of future versions of the Army's Distributed Common Ground
System; a provision that would require the Department to
modernize the security clearance information technology
architecture for the federal government as well as a proposed
implementation plan for moving some clearance investigation
processes back to the Department; a provision that would
require a strategy for assured access to trusted
microelectronics; a provision that would allow for a pilot
program to rapidly evaluate commercial information technology
systems for defense needs; a provision that would require a
review of policies and guidance related to the use of anti-
competitive specifications in information technology
acquisitions; a provision that would modify and expand the
information technology exchange program; a provision that would
repeal the requirements for Major Automated Information Systems
by September 30, 2017; a provision that would modify the
responsibilities of the Department of Defense Chief Information
Officer in title 10; a provision that would allow for an
exemption from requirement for capital planning and investment
control for information technology equipment included as an
integral part of a weapon or weapon system; a provision that
would allow for the increased use of commercial data
integration and analysis products for the purpose of preparing
financial statement audits; a provision that would require a
strategic plan for the Defense Information Systems Agency; and
a provision that would limit the ability of the Air Force to
declare full operational capability for the Joint Regional
Security Stacks until operational testing has occurred.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
As part of the committee's emphasis on defense reform, it
undertook significant oversight and legislative action in the
114th Congress to improve the organization and management of
the Department of Defense in order to ensure that it is
properly postured to meet the complex and evolving security
threats of the 21st century and to maintain U.S. technological
superiority.
In 2015, the committee focused its oversight on
streamlining Department of Defense management headquarters, to
include creating greater accountability in headquarters budgets
and personnel and better insight into Department efforts to
implement actual and planned reductions. Subsequently, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) contained a provision to require the Department to
implement a 25 percent reduction to headquarters activities and
conduct a comprehensive review of headquarters, administrative,
and support functions.
In 2016, the committee reviewed the 30-year old Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986
(Public Law 99-433) and engaged with numerous experts across
the defense, academic, and private sector communities to
examine opportunities for organizational and joint matters
reform. In July 2016, the committee held a hearing with outside
experts on ``Goldwater-Nichols Reform: The Way Ahead,'' and
received a briefing from senior Department of Defense leaders
on how potential Goldwater-Nichols reforms would affect
Pentagon management and operations. S. 2943, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, contains
several Goldwater-Nichols reform-related provisions, including
a restructuring of the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
elevate research and engineering, better focus acquisition and
sustainment activities, and improve oversight and management of
the Department's ``fourth estate,'' as well as a review of the
combatant command structure. S. 2943 would also enhance the
responsibilities and tenure of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff; revise the definition of ``joint duty matters'' to
better reflect the types of joint duty positions for which an
officer may receive joint duty credit; and reduce the number of
general and flag officers, as well as senior executive service
personnel, by roughly 11 percent, to address concerns about the
growth in headquarters and command senior staff. Lastly, S.
2943 would also include reforms to the National Security
Council.
Readiness
OVERVIEW
The Subcommittee on Readiness focused oversight in the
114th Congress on Department of Defense training, logistics,
maintenance, military construction, installations, family
housing, civilian personnel management, and energy and the
environment. The committee remains concerned about the
detrimental impacts to military readiness wrought by the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). The cumulative impacts
of this law include lost training opportunities, delayed or
deferred ship deployments, missed depot availabilities,
deferred maintenance requirements, and added stress to service
men and women.
The Subcommittee on Readiness held multiple hearings and
briefings focused on the readiness of the military services.
Witnesses spoke of the degraded state of readiness throughout
the force. Military leaders testified it would take years to
achieve full-spectrum readiness for any future conflict with a
near-peer competitor.
Subcommittee-sponsored travel included congressional
delegations to visit military and civilian leaders in the
Republic of Iraq, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Arab Republic of
Egypt in the Middle East; the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of
Belgium, Republic of Poland, Republic of Latvia, and Republic
of Estonia in Europe; and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
Kingdom of Thailand, Malaysia, Socialist Republic of Vietnam,
Republic of the Philippines, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Okinawa, Territory of Guam, Saipan, and Tinian in Asia and the
Pacific. Subcommittee staff visited numerous domestic and
overseas military posts, bases, training centers, arsenals,
depots, and shipyards to hear from uniformed leaders, see
firsthand their training, listen to their readiness concerns,
and observe their military construction activities.
FORCE READINESS
The committee focused oversight on the cumulative impacts
of underfunding readiness, in particular the operation and
maintenance, military construction, facilities sustainment,
restoration, and modernization accounts. The Subcommittee on
Readiness held multiple hearings on the subject involving the
Department of Defense and each of the military services, both
active and reserve components. Witnesses detailed the continued
erosion of readiness throughout the force, asking not only for
increased funding but funding stability as well. The lack of
adequate and stable funding resulting from the Budget Control
Act (Public Law 112-25) and delayed appropriations force the
services to defer maintenance on real property, increasing
future costs. The conflict in Syria, the rise of the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant, and regional aggression by Russia
and China were also noted as factors pressuring military
readiness. For the services, this meant continuous overseas
deployments and little opportunity to conduct deferred
maintenance on major end items or undergo long-neglected
training for high-end threats. The continued drawdown of force
strength, particularly in the Army, exacerbated readiness
challenges. The committee took note of an increasing number of
aircraft accidents and raised concern that this category of
equipment could be the first glimpse into a larger future
readiness crisis. In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, the committee directed the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct an assessment of the Department's
plans to rebuild readiness, conduct an assessment of Army and
Air Force training requirements, and review the Navy's
Optimized Fleet Response Plan. H. Rept. 114-537 also directed
the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to
provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives on rotary-wing aviation
readiness and safety.
Army
The Army fully funds the maximum number of brigade combat
team rotations through its Combat Training Centers, which it
views as a crucial requirement for a return to training for
full spectrum combat operations. In repeated testimony and in
roundtable discussions with committee Members, Army military
and civilian leaders emphasized that returning to full spectrum
readiness following years of preparing primarily for
counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would take
years. Army leaders anticipated that they would achieve full
spectrum readiness no earlier than 2021. This timeline, they
added, would be difficult to accelerate but was at risk given
the current scheduled drawdown of Army end strength and budget
instability. Army leaders were concerned that they were
continuing to do as much with fewer available forces, and
emphasized that while confident that deploying units were fully
prepared, their readiness came at the expense of units either
recovering from deployments or preparing to deploy.
The Subcommittee on Readiness shared these concerns and
noted the fragility of the readiness of just-deployed and next-
to-deploy units, which was highlighted during hearings and
field visits. Committee members noted that new training
opportunities in Eastern Europe as a result of European
Reassurance Initiative funding increased unit readiness as well
as partner-nation capacity. The committee received briefings
and provided oversight on other Army-led training initiatives
such as Pacific Pathways and the Regionally Aligned Force in
U.S. Africa Command.
Navy and Marine Corps
The committee remains concerned that high operational tempo
leaves insufficient time and resources to adequately repair and
refit Navy ships and aircraft. The Subcommittee on Readiness
heard in testimony that the Navy's attempt to maximize ship
employability through its Optimized Fleet Response Plan
remained at risk due to deferred maintenance now coming due and
unplanned or extended deployments. Navy leaders emphasized that
ships on extended deployments often required additional,
unplanned, and time-consuming repairs upon their return. In
both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee included
additional funds for ship and aircraft depot maintenance in an
attempt to address the backlog of Navy maintenance
requirements.
Like the Army, the Marine Corps is experiencing higher-
than-expected operational tempo and reduced force structure.
Marine Corps leaders expressed similar concerns with next-to-
deploy units, whose readiness suffered in order to ensure
deploying units were ready. Of particular concern was the lack
of cumulative flying time for Marine Corps aviators, whose
skills were in danger of atrophying due to lack of flying time
caused in large part by the lack of availability of aircraft
due to maintenance backlogs.
Air Force
The committee found that the Air Force's operational tempo
has not lessened with combat operations increasing in the
Middle East as a result of the rise of violent extremist
organizations. The imbalance between introduction of the F-35
and the sunsetting of older airframes exacerbates maintenance
and manning challenges. The reduction in the F-35 replacement
rate for older aircraft worsens the readiness challenges by
forcing competition for scarce resources between legacy
platforms and beddowns for the new. These legacy airframes are
experiencing increased engine and structural fatigue,
deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of component
failures. While the Air Force is also concerned about a
shortage of pilots, in testimony before the Subcommittee on
Readiness, Air Force leaders stated their biggest readiness
concern is a shortage of 4,000 mechanics.
LIFE-CYCLE SUSTAINMENT
Without appropriate and timely input from the logistics
community, decisions made during system design can create
unnecessary sustainment problems that drive millions of dollars
in depot-level maintenance once the system is fielded. The
committee focused on reducing the total-ownership costs of
weapon systems and equipment by ensuring the Department of
Defense is developing, procuring, and modernizing weapon
systems and equipment with consideration of life-cycle support
and sustainment requirements and cost. In its oversight of the
Department's life-cycle sustainment efforts, the committee
monitored the implementation of section 2337 of title 10,
United States Code, which requires that each major weapon
system be supported by a product support manager and section
832 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81), which requires additional visibility
of the operation and support of major weapon systems. The
committee included provisions in S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, that address the role
of Technical Data Rights in life-cycle sustainment and how the
costs are shared between private and Government agencies and
contracts. Section 844 of S. 2943 would provide a requirement
for the ``Review and Report on Sustainment Planning in the
Acquisition Process''. This review would address sustainment
matters throughout the process: requirements generation,
research and development, acquisition, cost estimating, and
programming and budgeting. The committee also held the
Department accountable for improving its estimations of total
weapon system life-cycle costs to better inform sustainment
strategies, such as the cost effectiveness of acquiring
technical data from original equipment manufacturers to allow
future changes in sustainment path. Furthermore, the committee
continued its oversight of the Department's corrosion control
efforts and monitored resourcing of corrosion prediction and
prevention efforts with a focus on increasing the service life
of weapon systems while reducing long-term sustainment costs.
S. 2943 includes two specific provisions that would address the
topic of corrosion control: section 322, ``Revision of Guidance
Related to Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives'', and
section 954, ``Modification to Corrosion Report''.
DEPOT AND ARSENAL CAPABILITY
A critical piece of equipment sustainment is the capability
provided by the Nation's organic arsenals and depots, including
air logistics centers and shipyards. The committee is concerned
about the long-term health of the organic industrial base
during an extended period of unstable and unpredictable
funding, which has led to a prolonged period of significant
fluctuation in workloads across the organic industrial base.
While some military departments have completed an organic
industrial base sustainment plan, the committee is concerned
that the Department of Defense continues to lack a
comprehensive strategy to ensure U.S. military depots and
arsenals are viably positioned and have the workforce,
equipment, and facilities for efficient operations to meet the
Nation's current requirements, as well as those in the future.
The committee will continue oversight of depot and arsenal
operations and management, focusing on capital investment in
facilities and equipment, the implementation methodology and
use of sustainment concepts such as performance-based
logistics, the role of public-private partnerships, the use of
working capital funds for timely product improvement, and the
services' logistics enterprise resource planning systems.
Furthermore, the committee will examine how previous efficiency
initiatives and workforce reductions impact depot and arsenal
capability, how more recent initiatives to increase arsenal and
depot visibility among program managers and program executive
offices are working, and how well programs and plans designed
to assure the availability of critical organic manufacturing
capabilities are being executed.
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
The committee remained concerned about the Department of
Defense's strategic workforce planning for its civilian
personnel. The committee sought to provide the Department with
additional means to effectively manage its Federal civilian
workforce. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016
(Public Law 114-92) significant provisions included requiring
reductions in force of Department of Defense civilian personnel
to be based primarily on performance, and lengthening the
probationary period for new employees from 1 to 2 years.
In 2016, the Department unveiled a series of military and
civilian personnel proposals called ``Force of the Future.''
The committee received several briefings on the Department's
legislative proposals and scrutinized their usefulness. S.
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017, contains many of these proposals, including several
provisions that would give the Department direct hire authority
for multiple categories of employees, in particular for the
organic industrial base, the Major Test and Range Facilities
Base, and some post-secondary students and recent graduates; an
increase in the maximum amount of voluntary separation
incentive pay the Department can offer civilian employees; and
a provision that would allow temporary and term-limited
employees to qualify for non-competitive permanent appointment
to the civilian service. Most of these provisions are temporary
and require the Department to provide reports on their
effectiveness in order to extend or make the authority
permanent in the future.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
The committee conducted oversight of the Department of
Defense's energy activities in the 114th Congress. This
included close examination of the strategies and policies for
both installation energy and operational energy to enhance
combat capabilities, strengthen mission assurance and
resiliency, and reduce operating costs for the Department. In
addition, the committee closely monitored the Department's
policies and programs related to legacy and emergent
environmental contamination and response plans. Finally, the
committee continued its oversight and efforts to mitigate
potential impacts to military training and operations due to
energy developments in proximity to military installations.
Operational Energy
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included several
provisions regarding operational energy policy, to address the
procurement of alternative fuels. Public Law 114-92 amended
subchapter II of chapter 173 of title 10, United States Code,
to prohibit Department of Defense funds from being used to make
bulk purchases of drop-in fuel for operational purposes, unless
the cost of that drop-in fuel is cost-competitive with
traditional fuel. In addition, as directed by the committee
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee requested
the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency to provide a
briefing that addresses the process used to evaluate and
determine whether an alternative fuel is cost-competitive with
conventional fuels, including the use of any funds provided by
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Finally, S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, included a provision
amending section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) to allow the
Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement of section 526
for the procurement of fuel if in the interest of national
security.
Installation Energy
With respect to installation energy, the committee focused
its oversight on the implementation and efficacy of the
Department of Defense's current programs. As directed by
committee report (H. Rept. 114-270) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee
was briefed by the General Accounting Office on the degree to
which the Department has identified benefits, as well as
challenges, from its net zero installation initiatives, and any
areas where improvements are needed. As direct by the committee
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee also
requested the Comptroller General of the United States to
review the extent to which the Department of Defense is
effectively leveraging appropriations to repay developers for
alternatively financed energy savings, efficiency, or
generating capacity projects, details on energy savings,
efficiency, and generating capacity projects financed since
2012, reliability of reported project energy savings and
efficiency performance, and to what extent the Department's
installations utilities budgets have been encumbered to repay
contractors in energy savings performance contracts, utilities
energy services contracts, or other alternative project
financing.
Furthermore, in H. Rept. 114-537, the committee was
supportive of efforts by the Department and encouraged the
Department to better leverage and integrate existing
authorities to ensure installations have resilient, available,
reliable, and continuous power during disruptions to the
electrical supply, prioritizing facilities supporting mission
critical functions and done under an enterprise approach and in
a manner that is cost-effective and based on assessed
vulnerabilities. To that end, S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, includes a provision
that would allow energy resiliency and energy security projects
to be funded using the Department's Energy Conservation
Investment Program (ECIP).
Energy Siting and Encroachment
The committee has continued to monitor potential impacts on
military training and operations posed by energy developments
proposed near military installations. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)
amended section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to
expand coverage of the Siting Clearinghouse to requests for
informal reviews by Indian tribes and landowners, clarify that
information received from private entities is not publicly
releasable, eliminate categories of adverse risk, and limit
applicability of section to only energy projects. In addition,
in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-270) to accompany the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee directed the Department of Defense to report on the
science, standards, assumptions, and criteria by which the
Department assesses the risk to military missions or training
ranges. Finally, in S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization
Act for the Fiscal Year 2017, the committee included a
provision that would amend section 44718 of title 49, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
include the interests of national security, as determined by
the Secretary of Defense, in the Secretary of Transportation's
aeronautical studies and reports required under this statute in
regards to structures interfering with air commerce.
Environment
The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to
include the military services' environmental restoration
program and adherence to Federal, state, and local cleanup,
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. There have
been several areas of emerging concern to include protecting
the Department's training, testing, and operations from
encroachment, emerging contaminates that may require
remediation by the Department, and the ability for the
Department to operate in the Arctic.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included a section to chapter 631 of title
10, United States Code, to provide for the conservation needs
of the Southern Sea Otter while continuing the protections for
military readiness activities at important offshore islands in
the Southern California Bight.
Public Law 114-92 also modified section 2602(2)(B) of title
15, United States Code, to add exclusion of any component of
any article, including shot, bullets and other projectiles,
propellants when manufactured for or used in such an article,
and primers.
The committee continued oversight of the engineering
assessment of Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility and in
the committee report (H. Rept. 114-270) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
directed a follow-up briefing not later than 30 days after the
date of approval of the best available practicable
technological solutions for tank repairs.
The committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 began
what is anticipated to be a long term assessment on the
Department's response to health advisory levels for
perfluororooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS) chemicals found in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam used to
fight fires. Specifically, the committee directed the Secretary
of Defense to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services, not later than March 1, 2017, regarding the
Departments efforts and initiatives in response to significant
concern on the basis of evidence showing exposure to PFOS and
PFOA may have led to indications of toxicity in humans.
Specifically, the briefing should address: the Department's
current policies regarding PFOA and PFOS; the programmatic
approach being taken by the Department of Defense to identify,
investigate, and respond to the presence of PFOA and PFAS at
military installations; and the programmatic approach to the
removal and replacement of PFOAs and PFOSs in AFFF firefighting
foam.
Military Construction and Infrastructure
BASING
The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant
change in force structure both in the United States and
overseas as a result of the drawdown of military forces from
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Global Defense Posture
Review, and budgetary pressures being placed on the Department
of Defense. These rebasing movements affect not only U.S.
global presence, but they may also have significant
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military
construction, and quality of life for military members and
their families.
The committee has been specifically interested in ensuring
the Department of Defense has the requisite tools and
capabilities to support the Pacific rebalance effort. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) included a section that authorized construction
funds for a public waste water improvement project to support
the realignment of military forces from Okinawa to Guam. In
Public Law 114-92, the committee took further action to also
authorize support for the construction of a cultural repository
to store sensitive artifacts uncovered during the military
construction program for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air
Force posture initiatives on Guam.
Further supporting the oversight of the Pacific rebalance
effort, Public Law 114-92 also required the Department to
submit an annual report to the congressional defense committees
for each of fiscal years 2017-26 that would address the total
amount contributed from the Government of Japan to support the
United States Relocation to Guam Account during the most recent
year, as well as the anticipated contributions to be made
during the current and next Japanese fiscal years.
The committee also provided oversight of the Department's
European Consolidation Initiative, receiving multiple briefs on
the planned base closures, mission support infrastructure
consolidation and funding strategy for reduction in European
military presence. Further, the committee received briefs on
infrastructure investments required to support the European
Reassurance Initiative in Eastern Europe, those infrastructure
builds that improved training opportunities and multi-modal
options for U.S. forces.
While not specific to a single geographic area, the
committee took several steps to increase oversight on the
overseas posture and infrastructure requirements of the
Department. Specifically, Public Law 114-92 included a
provision that required specific reporting requirements on the
goals and operational requirements, anticipated infrastructure
investments required, and terms of the agreements with the host
nation for newly designated overseas cooperative security
locations, forward operating sites, and main operating bases.
In addition, in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing on the development of facility requirements
for overseas enduring locations supporting contingency
operations and how improvements are being made to improve the
long-term infrastructure planning and programming process.
The committee also assessed the Department of Defense's
request for an additional round of Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC). Public Law 114-92 retained the BRAC restriction from
previous years, including language that stated nothing in the
Act shall be construed to authorize a future BRAC round.
However, in an effort to better inform Congress and standardize
the military service assessments, Public Law 114-92 included a
provision for the Department to conduct an excess
infrastructure capacity assessment based on current
infrastructure data and fiscal year 2012 force structure
levels. The restriction on carrying out another round of BRAC
was also included in S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2017.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING
With regard to construction programming, the committee
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to
address emerging construction requirements. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) contained a provision that authorized the use of operations
and maintenance funds for contingency construction. This
provision was again carried in S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2017.
Public Law 114-92 authorized a $150 million per year pilot
program for the Secretary of Defense to accept contributions
from the Government of the State of Kuwait through fiscal year
2020 in support of construction, maintenance, and repair
projects within Kuwait that are mutually beneficial to the
Department of Defense and the Kuwait military forces. This
provision was further modified by S. 2943 to extend the
authorization through fiscal year 2030.
Further, Public Law 114-92 aligned Reserve Component minor
construction and repair thresholds with the thresholds
specified in chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
fixing an oversight in the authority changes from the previous
year.
Finally, the committee undertook a number of legislative
initiatives aimed at providing the Department with additional
tools and flexibility to manage and invest in their facilities.
Public Law 114-92 included a provision establishing a pilot
program for laboratory facility modernization by allowing up to
$150.0 million in research, development, test, and evaluation
funds to be used per year for military construction projects
supporting any Department of Defense Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratory or Department of Defense federally
funded research and development center. The authority lasts for
5 years and would require projects to be requested by the
Department and authorized as part of the national defense
authorization act. S. 2943 would amend section 2811 of title
10, United States Code, to reclassify facility conversion
projects as repair, allowing work within the existing
dimensions of a facility to be considered repair and utilize
operations & maintenance funding instead of limited military
construction funds. In addition, S. 2943 would increase the
minor military construction threshold for laboratory
revitalization projects from $4.0 million to $6.0 million while
adding in a congressional notification requirement for such
projects.
REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND DISPOSAL
The real property management process requires extensive
oversight to maintain more than $850.3 billion in
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $37.0 billion, or
nearly 7.5 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision to enhance the
authority to accept conditional gifts of real property on
behalf of the military service academies, if the gift of such
real property is conditioned upon the property bearing a
specified name. The committee authorized the military service
academies to accept such a gift if the acceptance and naming
would not reflect unfavorably on the United States, and the
real property has not otherwise been named by an act of
Congress.
In addition, Public Law 114-92 authorized a land exchange
at Mare Island Army Reserve Center, Vallejo, California, and
Navy Outlying Landing Field, Naval Air Station, Whiting Field,
Florida; released property interests retained in connection
with Fort Bliss Military Reservation, Texas; and provided
additional land withdraw for Naval Air Weapons Station China
Lake, California. S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization
Act for 2017, includes additional land conveyances at the High
Frequency Active Auroral Research Program facility in Gakona,
Alaska, Campion Air Force Radar Station in Galena, Alaska,
Colbern Army Reserve Center in Laredo, Texas, and St. George
National Guard Armory in St. George, Utah. S. 2943 also
includes a provision that would authorize the exchanges of
Federal and non-Federal lands and take other actions required
to expand the boundaries of the Utah Test and Training Range
and mitigate possible encroachment on the range.
The committee reviewed the Department of Defense facility
sustainment accounts and found significant shortfalls that must
be addressed to manage and sustain the mission. The committee
increased funding to these accounts in both Public Law 114-92
and S. 2943 to address shortfalls in the facility sustainment
accounts to partially support systemic facility sustainment
deficits.
Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues
MANPOWER SUFFICIENT IN QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO MEET GLOBAL COMMITMENTS
Some argue that military personnel costs have exploded and
will continue to rise to unsustainable levels. The committee
rejects that assertion because such a budget-oriented focus
misses the fundamental question that the committee addressed:
What does the Nation need in terms of the quantity of manpower
and the quality of that manpower to meet its current and future
global military commitments, without undue risk to the Nation.
In this context, the fiscal year 2015 budget request proposed
to continue to reduce the end strengths of the Army and Marine
Corps by 100,000 over a 5-year period, which began with the
fiscal year 2013 budget request, bringing both services down to
approximately pre-9/11 levels.
The committee remains concerned with the planned reductions
while the military services face potential challenges from
near-peers and are still engaged in stability operations in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, advisory and training missions
in the Republic of Iraq and numerous smaller engagements
throughout the world. Reflecting that concern, the committee
continued to provide detailed oversight of military manpower
levels and force structure during the first session of the
114th Congress. The committee remained concerned with the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) impacts on the
ability of the military services to maintain manpower levels
sufficient to meet the National Military Strategy. The
committee supported the end strengths of the military services
as requested in the President's budget in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92),
which continued the pre-planned budget-driven reduction of
service end-strength. The committee supported the requested
end-strengths while closely monitoring the effect on readiness.
In the second session of the 114th Congress, the committee
addressed the concern about reductions and the impacts of a
continued end-strength draw-down by stopping the draw-down of
both the Active and Reserve Components and by increasing the
end-strength levels above the 2016 levels in S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The
committee continued to provide aggressive oversight of military
manpower levels and force structure to ensure they met the
requirements of the National Military Strategy. This oversight
sought to provide Active, Guard and Reserve Forces that have
manpower levels sufficient to sustain varying scales of
activation, while maintaining deployment ratios at or above
Department of Defense objectives. On March 3, 2016, the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met to receive a round-table
briefing on the military personnel posture for fiscal year
2017. With that focus, the committee continued to examine
closely trends in overall total force structure requirements,
end strength, recruiting, retention, morale, benefits and
compensation changes that will enhance the future force.
MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND MILITARY RESALE PROGRAMS
While some have criticized the Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation (MWR) and military resale programs (commissary and
exchange stores) as being unnecessary, wasteful and targeted
for reductions in appropriated funding, the committee believes
the cost efficient sustainment of MWR and military resale
programs is required to protect quality of life in military
communities and maintain the combat readiness of the force. The
committee continued to provide oversight efforts directed
toward that end.
The committee believes that MWR and military resale
programs must remain competitive with private sector entities
to ensure that service members and their families benefit fully
from these programs. The committee monitored current practices
and policies to ensure that MWR and military resale programs
are employing the full range of strategies available to private
sector competitors to inform authorized patrons about the
benefits associated with these programs and attract them to
participate. This is especially true for commissaries that are
restricted from using pricing, product, and advertising
strategies that are common in the private sector because of
legislative and policy barriers. The Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the Department of
Defense to review management, food, and pricing options for the
Defense Commissary System in consultation with an organization
experienced in grocery retail analysis to assist in maintaining
a competitive and effective commissary system in the future.
During the 114th Congress, the committee continued to
review and to propose changes to the commissary system, many
based on the results of the study directed in Public Law 113-
291. The Boston Consulting Group's results form the basis for
reforms in the military resale system that was considered as
part of S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017. The goal of the reform effort is to maintain
the enduring savings achieved by military families using the
commissary system while reducing the commissary's reliance on
appropriated funds for its operations. In this effort the
subcommittee has met for closed briefings on resale reform with
the Department of Defense along with the Boston Consulting
Group to hear and discuss the results of their study, and has
considered the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission results on military resale reform.
On September 17, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel met to receive the recommendations and the results of
the military resale study conducted by the Boston Consulting
Group. On October 23, 2015, the subcommittee met for a
roundtable briefing on the Department of Defense views on
military resale reform. This briefing set the stage for
commissary reform and focused on the Department of Defense
views on the reform recommendations. On January 13, 2016, the
subcommittee met to hear testimony from the Department of
Defense on the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission's recommendations on military resale
reform. On September 13, 2016, the subcommittee continued it
oversight efforts and met to receive a roundtable briefing on
an update on commissary reform from the Department of Defense.
The committee's oversight on commissary reform led to the
inclusion of major commissary reform in S. 2943.
MILITARY BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION
During the 114th Congress, the Department of Defense budget
remained under considerable stress and military benefits were
targeted for reductions. The committee gave close scrutiny to
proposals from the Department of Defense and other
organizations, both Government and private sector, calling for
funding reductions to military compensation and other benefit
programs to ensure any proposed change fully assesses the
impact to the All-Volunteer Force. The committee continued to
monitor compensation programs during the first and second
sessions of the 114th Congress to ensure an adequate quality of
life for service members and their families, and to ensure that
pay and benefits meet the needs of the wartime military and
keep pace with private sector standards.
On February 11, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel met to receive testimony on the final recommendations
from the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission. On March 17, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel met for a closed Member roundtable on the retirement
and quality of life recommendations from the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to focus
on military retirement reform. Finally on March 25, 2015, the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met to receive testimony on
the stakeholder's views on the recommendations of the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. These
oversight meetings contributed to the inclusion of the reform
of the military retirement system in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92),
which authorized the implementation of a new military
retirement system based on the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations.
The subcommittee's oversight of pay and allowance issues
led the committee as part of S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, to recommend no change
to current law, which would require the by-law 2.1 percent
raise in basic pay during fiscal year 2017 based on section
1009 of title 37, United States Code. It is the intent of the
underlying law to ensure military pay raises match the rate of
compensation increases in the private sector as measured by the
Employment Cost Index. The committee extended the authorities
to pay bonuses and special pays during fiscal year 2016 and
fiscal year 2017 and monitored the value of those bonuses and
special pays to ensure they were sufficient to achieve the
recruiting and retention objectives for which they were
developed. The committee also included legislation that
increased the pilot bonus to begin to address the Air Force's
pilot shortage.
On September 17, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive the
recommendations and the results of the military resale study
conducted by the Boston Consulting Group. On October 23, 2015,
the subcommittee met for a roundtable briefing on the
Department of Defense views on military resale reform. This
briefing set the stage for commissary reform and focused on the
Department's views on the reform recommendations. On January
13, 2016, the subcommittee met for its first hearing on the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission's
recommendations on military resale reform. On September 13,
2016, the subcommittee met to receive a roundtable briefing to
receive an update on commissary reform from the Department. The
committee's active oversight on commissary reform led to the
inclusion of major commissary reform in S. 2943.
On December 9, 2015, the subcommittee met to hear testimony
from the stakeholders on the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP),
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) financial offset. A
provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) established a Special Survivor
Indemnity Allowance (SSIA) for surviving spouses who are the
beneficiary of the SBP annuity and have their annuity partially
or fully offset by the DIC. This allowance was due to expire at
the end of fiscal year 2017. The committee's oversight in this
area led to an extension of the SSIA until May 31, 2018, in S.
2843.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
A continued principal focus of the committee during the
114th Congress was the adequacy and effectiveness of mental
health services provided to members of the Armed Forces and
their families. Particular attention was given to the suicide
prevention efforts undertaken by each military service and the
consistency and comprehensiveness of the Department of Defense
policy on prevention of suicide among members of the Armed
Forces and their families, including methods of collecting and
assessing suicide data. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel
met on June 15, 2015, for a briefing on military suicide
prevention programs from the Department of Defense and the
military services.
The committee continues to be concerned that access to
mental health services for service members and their families
remains limited. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) encouraged the Secretary
of Defense to utilize existing direct hire authorities to fill
vacancies in critical health care occupations, such as mental
health specialists. In addition, S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would require the
Department to maximize the use of telehealth capabilities to
expand access to increase the availability of critical health
care services.
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
The committee continued to focus on the effectiveness and
viability of Department of Defense and the military services'
sexual assault prevention and response programs, with a
particular emphasis on victim care and support. The committee
also conducted a holistic review of the military justice system
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to ensure the
system effectively and efficiently holds offenders of all
crimes appropriately accountable. The committee's work was
informed by the independent assessments of the Judicial
Proceedings Panel, as well as the thorough review of the UCMJ
conducted by the Military Justice Review Group.
The committee also provided oversight of the Department's
implementation of the recommendations by the Responses Systems
to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel to improve programs and
policies to prevent and address sexual assaults involving
members of the Armed Forces. Finally, the committee focused on
efforts to prevent and address retaliation and ostracism of
members of the Armed Forces who report sex-related crimes.
The committee continued to provide robust oversight of the
Department of Defense and the military departments' sexual
assault prevention and response efforts. On February 4, 2015,
the committee received the initial report of the Judicial
Proceedings Panel. The report identified several areas for
improvement, including recommendations to further enhance and
standardize the Special Victims Counsel (SVC) program, as well
as a recommendation to streamline changes to the UCMJ. These
recommendations, along with substantial feedback from DOD and
other stakeholders, informed the sexual assault provisions in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92).
In furtherance of the committee's continued oversight of
the Department's efforts to prevent future sexual assaults, the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel also met to receive a closed
briefing on June 24, 2015, on the implementation of the
recommendations of the reviews following the sexual assault
incidents at Lackland Air Force Base and to receive an update
on the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Program.
Public Law 114-92 included a substantial number of
bipartisan reforms designed to further refine the SVC program
and the UCMJ. Specifically, these provisions:
(1) Expand the SVC program to authorize SVCs to
provide legal advice to Department of Defense civilian
employees;
(2) Direct the Secretary of Defense to standardize
the content and timeline for SVC training;
(3) Direct the Secretary of Defense to examine the
process for implementing statutory changes to the UCMJ;
(4) Require timely notification to sexual assault
victims of the availability of SVC;
(5) Enhance confidentiality of restricted reporting
of sexual assault in the military by preempting any
State law requiring certain professionals to report the
personally identifiable information of a sexual assault
victim;
(6) Direct the Department of Defense to enhance
prevention and response for sexual assaults in which a
male member is the victim;
(7) Prevent retaliation against service members who
report or intervene on behalf a sexual assault victim;
(8) Require retention of all case notes in sex-
related investigations of the military departments for
at least 50 years;
(9) Direct the Secretary of Defense to develop
procedures to streamline the implementation guidance
regarding UCMJ changes;
(10) Modify the Rules for Court-Martial to prohibit
giving a less than favorable rating to SVCs because
they zealously represented their clients; and
(11) Modify Military Rule of Evidence 304 to conform
to the Federal court rules on admissibility of the
corroboration of confessions, to the extent the
President considers practicable.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes substantial bipartisan reforms designed to
improve the fairness and efficiency of the UCMJ. These reforms
are largely based on the 2015 recommendations of the Military
Justice Review Group, a group of experts convened by the
Secretary of Defense at the urging of Congress. The group was
tasked with proposing changes that would modernize the UCMJ.
The resulting provisions would:
(1) Enhance victims' rights through greater
opportunities for input on disposition decisions at the
preliminary stages of the case;
(2) Improve efficiency by authorizing a military
magistrate program, much like civilian Federal courts,
for the disposition of lower-level offenses;
(3) Improve transparency by providing for public
access to court documents and pleadings;
(4) Standardize court-martial panel sizes (12 in
capital cases, 8 in general courts-martial, and 4 in
special courts-martial) and number required to convict
(3/4);
(5) Improve visibility over sentencing data by
requiring military judges who are sentencing the
accused to adjudge a distinct sentence for each offense
for which the accused was found guilty, rather than the
current system under which the military judge adjudges
a single sentence for all offenses (known as unitary
sentencing);
(6) Expand the statute of limitations for child abuse
offenses and fraudulent enlistment;
(7) Create several new offenses, including
prohibiting retaliation; inappropriate relationships
between a military recruit or trainee and a person in
position of special trust; fraudulent use of credit and
debit cards; and offenses concerning Government
computers; and
(8) Relocate several established offenses from the
general article (Article 134) and establishes them as
individual articles.
MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
The committee is committed to maintaining a robust Military
Health System (MHS) whose primary responsibility is readiness
of the force. To accomplish this goal, the committee undertook
a comprehensive review of the MHS to identify necessary reforms
to sustain the long term viability of the system. To that end,
the committee, particularly the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, focused oversight and legislative activities to make
certain that the MHS can sustain trained and ready healthcare
providers to support the readiness of the force and a quality
healthcare benefit that is valued by its beneficiaries. The
committee's efforts were focused in three areas: medical
readiness, the MHS structure, and the TRICARE benefit.
During the first session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met several times to discuss
the military health care system and recommendations from the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel met
to receive testimony from stakeholders on the recommendations
of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission. The subcommittee also met on March 19, 2015, for a
roundtable on the health care recommendations from the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. Lastly,
on June 11, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the
Department of Defense views on the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations for
military health care reform.
The committee continued oversight through a series of
activities focused on developing recommendations for a military
health care reform legislative package. On November 4, 2015,
the subcommittee met for a closed briefing on Health Insurance/
TRICARE 101. The subcommittee also met on November 18, 2015,
for a briefing from former military Surgeons General on
military health care reform. Subcommittee staff conducted a
series of oversights visits to Military Treatment Facilities
(MTF) to hear views on military health care from beneficiaries,
MTF staff, and leadership.
The committee's efforts culminated in the most significant
health care reform in decades. S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would ensure medical
readiness; modernize the MHS and simplify the TRICARE benefit
by directing the Department of Defense to establish a Joint
Education and Trauma Training Directorate to create enduring
partnerships with civilian trauma centers where military trauma
surgeons and their teams can treat critically injured patients
in the volume needed to maintain clinical proficiency;
establish a Joint Trauma System to establish standards of care
for all trauma services provided within the military health
system; establish an executive-level management office within
the Defense Health Agency to manage health care operations,
budget, information technology and medical affairs across the
military treatment facilities while preserving the
responsibilities of the commanders of the facilities to ensure
the readiness of the force and the missions of the military
services' Surgeons General to man, train and equip the medical
force. Further access to urgent care would be expanded and no
longer require prior authorization, and primary care clinics
within MTFs would be required to be open beyond standard
business hours.
The TRICARE benefit would be improved by establishing
TRICARE Preferred as the self-managed, preferred provider
option that would replace TRICARE Standard and Extra. A future
enrollment fee for current retirees under TRICARE Preferred
would be contingent upon independent validation of improved
network adequacy. A revised fee structure for military
personnel entering service after January 1, 2018, would
guarantee continuity of generous healthcare benefits for the
future force.
On September 8, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on H.R. 4298: Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act
and H.R. 5458: Veterans TRICARE Choice Act. The Veterans
TRICARE Choice Act would allow retired TRICARE beneficiaries to
opt out of TRICARE to become eligible for a Health Savings
Account.
The committee continued oversight on the progress towards
implementing the requirements for an electronic health record
that is inter-operable with the electronic health record of the
Veterans Administration by closely monitoring expenditures and
acquisition activities and through quarterly updates from the
Department of Defense Program Executive Officer. The committee
is concerned with the planned delay in completing initial
implementation in the northwest.
WOUNDED WARRIOR CARE
The committee continued to assess the adequacy of the
Department of Defense policies and programs for wounded and
disabled service members and their families. In this regard,
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel met on February 3, 2015,
to receive testimony on the current status of the military
services' programs that support the recovery of wounded and
injured service members and their families and to assess the
effectiveness of the support for the wounded and injured
personnel. The subcommittee focused on policies regarding
selection of individuals who work with wounded and injured
personnel, access to medical care, service members
transitioning from the military, support for injured and
wounded members of the Reserve Component, and the Department's
plans for maintaining the wounded warrior programs in the
future. In addition, to evaluate the Department's ability to
integrate and coordinate the multitude of services and
resources available to assist the wounded and disabled with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, the committee received a report
of the status of programs authorized by section 1614 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181) as directed by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
The committee remained concerned over the Army's plan to
consolidate Warrior Transition Units (WTUs) as the number of
wounded and injured in the existing WTUs were greatly reduced.
The committee was also concerned about complaints received from
wounded warriors about the way they were treated in some Army
WTUs. The committee, in particular the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, engaged in discussions with the Army Warrior
Transition Command leadership regarding the consolidation
plans. In addition, Public Law 114-92 directed the Comptroller
General of the United States to evaluate whether there are
systemic mistreatment issues in the Army WTUs and the Army's
plan to maintain the WTU capability with fewer soldiers and
resources. Oversight activities also included several staff
visits to the military services' units responsible for the
care, recovery and transition of wounded, ill, and injured
service members.
The committee continued to provide oversight on the
timeliness of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The
committee monitored, through quarterly reports from the
Department of Defense and the military services, progress
toward reducing the time a service member remains in the
Integrated Disability Evaluation System and the backlog of
cases awaiting completion.
MILITARY FAMILY READINESS
The committee focused on the needs of military families who
continue to experience the strains associated with deployments.
The committee recognized the risk to the viability of family
programs as end strengths of the Armed Forces are reduced and
resources shrink. The committee engaged in discussions with the
Department of Defense and the military services to ensure that
family programs continue to provide robust support to needs of
family members. Of particular concern is the availability of
child care services on military installations and the
significant backlog of military parents waiting to enroll their
children in military Child Development Centers. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to
reduce the backlog by 50 percent by October 1, 2017. In
addition, the committee recognizes the challenges children of
military families face as a result of multiple deployments and
the tragedy of a loss of a military parent. S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to support non-profit
organizations that provide camp experiences to military
children who have experienced the death of a parent, a parent
with substance abuse disorder or post-traumatic stress
disorder.
PRISONER OF WAR AND MISSING IN ACTION
During the 114th Congress, the committee continued active
oversight of the Department of Defense's Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action (POW/MIA) activities. The committee
specifically focused on the implementation of modifications to
the requirements for accounting for members of the Armed Forces
and Department of Defense civilian employees listed as missing
by establishing a single defense agency for POW/MIA affairs
directed by the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291). Committee staff met on numerous occasions with
the leadership of the new Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency
(DPAA) to discuss progress in integrating the two former
agencies under the DPAA. During the first session of the 114th
Congress, committee staff visited the DPAA headquarters in
Hawaii for an orientation to the new facilities and to hear
views on the consolidation from DPAA employees.
Further, the committee continued to assess the progress
towards meeting the requirement that the accounting effort
achieve significantly higher levels of identification that was
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). Of particular concern are the
challenges associated with declassification procedures for
documents greater than 25 years old that may aid in the
location of persons that are MIA. To that end, H.R. 4909, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as
passed by the House, directed the Secretary of Defense to
identify inefficiencies in the process to declassify documents
that, if addressed, could improve recovery efforts.
WOMEN IN SERVICE
During the 114th Congress, the committee built upon the
work of the 113th Congress towards ensuring that opening all
military occupations to women will enhance the warfighting
capabilities and readiness of the Armed Forces. The committee
began an extensive effort to evaluate the military services'
process for developing gender-neutral occupational standards
established for each occupational specialty that was opened to
women. The committee received numerous staff level briefings on
the progress toward completing gender-neutral occupational
standards. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) required the Secretary
of Defense to add readiness to the criteria for gender-neutral
occupational standards.
The committee focused on the military services' assessment
activities undertaken to assess the impact of opening the
remaining combat arms military occupational specialties (MOS)
to female soldiers. Committee staff visited Marine Corps Air
Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms to observe the activities
of the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force established
by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to assess the effect of
gender integration in closed and open MOS, closed MOS units and
readiness. Committee staff also traveled to Fort Benning,
Georgia, to observe the Army Ranger Assessment Program that
included women as course participants as well as women as
observers in preparation for opening the Ranger School to
women.
Following the conclusion of the military services'
assessment activities and the Secretary of Defense's
announcement that all remaining MOS would be open to women, the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel met for a briefing from the
Department of Defense and the military services on the data
collection and methodology of the Women in Service Review.
Committee staff received briefings on the military services'
personnel policies and assignment practices for the newly
opened occupational specialties and the long-term plans for
assuring retention and advancement for women in newly opened
career fields.
Modernization and Investment Issues
OVERVIEW
During the 114th Congress, the committee devoted particular
attention to the examination of military equipment
modernization strategies with respect to overall military
readiness capability and capacity against all threats and
adversaries. The committee conducted oversight of the full
range of issues facing Department of Defense modernization and
investment programs to include the impacts of current budget
uncertainty and sequestration. The committee, through rigorous
oversight and legislative action, developed and implemented
strategies to help mitigate cost growth and schedule delays, as
well as enacted needed acquisition reform initiatives among all
categories of acquisition programs to help streamline the
overall development process. In particular, the committee has
worked to ensure the military services have the appropriate
authorities, capabilities, and force structure to defend
against any potential challenges posed by the advanced anti-
access/area-denial, and multi-domain capabilities of countries
such as the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China,
and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
MARITIME AVIATION
The committee provided extensive oversight of the Navy's
unmanned maritime programs and a new Navy program entitled
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
Systems (UCLASS). The Joint Explanatory Statement to Accompany
S. 1356, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Committee Print No. 2), stated ``that the Navy should
develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-
launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of
missions in a non-permissive environment.'' The Joint
Explanatory Statement also included that ``such an aircraft
should be designed for full integration into carrier air wing
operations--including strike operations--and possess the range,
payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to
complement such integration.'' The Joint Explanatory Statement
also indicated support to obtain additional information as to
the UCLASS program and the integration of this capability into
overall carrier air wing.
The budget request for fiscal year 2017 included support
for a new unmanned aviation program entitled MQ-25 to replace
the UCLASS program. S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017, supported MQ-25, but in the committee
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee noted
that ``the Navy may be excluding a critical capability and
precluding future growth in a platform that will likely be
integrated into the carrier air wing for the next 30 years.''
The report also indicated ``the committee continues to believe
that the effectiveness of the carrier and its air wing would be
enhanced by the development of an unmanned carrier-based
aircraft capable of penetrating in a non-permissive environment
and conducting strike.''
ARMY AND MARINE CORPS ARMORED VEHICLE MODERNIZATION
During the 114th Congress, committee activity focused on
providing oversight that would continue to ensure that the
existing fleet of armored combat vehicles were upgraded and
reset after very heavy use in the Republic of Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and that the Army and Marine
Corps continued to develop and resource vehicle modernization
strategies that are informed by realistic and affordable
operational requirements, as well as incorporate requirements
that address the evolving anti-vehicle threat posed by
improvised explosive devices and advances in anti-tank guided
missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. The committee's efforts
centered on ``restoring readiness'' through near-term
incremental modernization efforts that capitalize on
acquisition reform initiatives to better streamline the
development and fielding of solutions to the warfighter in a
timely manner. Consistent with committee oversight activity
from the 113th Congress, the committee also continued to assess
and mitigate the impacts of budget uncertainty and
sequestration on the armored combat vehicle industrial base.
The committee devoted particular focus on the following
Army and Marine Corps vehicle modernization program strategies:
Amphibious Combat Vehicle Increment 1.1 program; Stryker Combat
Vehicle lethality upgrade program; Armored Multi-Purpose
Vehicle program; Abrams Main Battle Tank program; Hercules
Improved Recovery Vehicle program; the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
program; and the initiation of the Army's mobile protected
firepower development program to help ``enhance the tactical
mobility and lethality for infantry brigade combat teams.''
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
hearing on March 19, 2015, on the budget request for fiscal
year 2016 that addressed the effectiveness of Army and Marine
Corps ground force and rotorcraft modernization programs, given
the complex security environment: ``Fiscal Year 2016 Ground
Force Modernization and Rotorcraft Modernization Programs.''
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also held two
classified briefings that focused on combat vehicle
modernization: June 25, 2015, ``Current and Emerging Threats to
U.S. Combat Vehicles''; and December 10, 2015, ``The Future of
Land Warfare and Combat Vehicle Modernization.'' For fiscal
year 2017, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
held a hearing on March 2, 2016, entitled ``Army and Marine
Corps Ground Force Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year
2017 Budget Request'' to review combat vehicle modernization
efforts for the Army and Marine Corps. The subcommittee also
held a hearing on February 10, 2016, entitled ``The
Recommendations from the National Commission on the Future of
the Army,'' to review the Commission's findings and
recommendations to include those associated with concerns
related to equipment capability and capacity. The subcommittee
held a briefing on June 8, 2016, on the Marine Corps Ground
Combat Tactical Vehicle modernization strategy as a follow-on
to the March 2nd hearing.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee required the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by January
30, 2016, on the potential force structure changes and
production programs necessary to achieve a pure fleet of M1
Abrams tanks across the Army, and directed the Secretary of the
Army to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by February
15, 2016, on what the current and long-terms plans are for
modernizing the remaining Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) authorized an additional $40.0 million for Abrams
Tank modifications to help sustain critical industrial bases
for Forward Looking Infrared programs, as well as
transmissions. Public Law 114-92 authorized an additional $72.0
million for Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles, an unfunded
requirement identified by the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Public Law 114-92 also authorized an additional $411.0 million
for lethality upgrades to improve the combat capability of
Stryker Combat Vehicles currently deployed in Europe; this
funding addressed an urgent operational need from forward
deployed forces.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included additional
funding for several combat vehicle modernization programs to
address unfunded requirements as identified by the Chief of
Staff of the Army: an additional $90 million for vehicle active
protection systems to counter emerging threats, in particular
for those vehicles operating in Europe; an additional $72.0
million for Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles; an additional
$60.0 million for continued Abrams tank modifications to help
maintain critical sub-tier industrial base suppliers for
transmissions and Forward Looking Infrared programs.
Both H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, and S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
contained legislation that would require the Secretary of the
Army and the Secretary of the Navy to establish and maintain
policy guidance regarding the establishment of, and updates to,
fire suppressant and fuel containment standards for combat
vehicles, an area of concern for members of the committee. Both
H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, and S. 2943 provided
legislation that would require an assessment on the ways, and
associated costs, to reduce or eliminate shortfalls in
responsiveness and capacity in several critical Army
modernization capabilities, such as combat vehicles.
The staff of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces also met with officials representing the Government
Accountability Office to discuss areas for improvement in Army
acquisition and processes requirements generation as part of
the Army's overall combat vehicle modernization strategy. The
staff also conducted oversight visits to each of the
contractors' production facilities who are actively
participating in the Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle
program.
ARMY AND MARINE CORPS TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES
During the 114th Congress, the committee oversight activity
on tactical wheeled vehicles (TWV) focused on the Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, the Ground Mobility Vehicle
program, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)
recapitalization strategies, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicle divestment strategies, divestment strategies for all
TWVs, and the consolidation of the TWV industrial base. Of
particular interest to the committee was the JLTV program. The
committee provided significant oversight on JLTV cost,
schedule, and performance as the program transitioned from
development into low-rate initial production. The committee
also continued to coordinate with the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) regarding the Department's efforts in the long-
term management and sustainment of the TWV fleet and its
associated industrial base.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces has
engaged in oversight work with the GAO to begin a comprehensive
review of the tactical wheeled vehicle industrial base.
Furthermore, the subcommittee also closely monitored the Army's
concept and way forward for improving combat capability of
Infantry Brigade Combat Teams that would consist of developing
and procuring three new combat tactical vehicles: the ground
mobility vehicle, lightweight reconnaissance vehicle, and
mobile protected firepower vehicle programs. The committee has
supported the Army's efforts for improving the tactical
mobility and combat effectiveness of light infantry units and
will continue to closely monitor these programs in the next
Congress.
During the 114th Congress, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces held hearings and briefings on the budget
request for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 that reviewed the
effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground force and
rotorcraft modernization programs against current and future
threats, as well as provided oversight on current acquisition
strategies, to include tactical wheeled vehicles such as the
JLTV and HMMWV recapitalization programs.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) authorized the President's budget request
for the JLTV program. Both H.R. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House,
and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year
2017, required the implementation of new policy guidance
regarding the establishment of, and updates to, fire
suppressant and fuel containment standards that meet
survivability requirements across various classes of tactical
wheeled vehicles. Both H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, and
S. 2943 provided an additional $50.0 million for new production
HMMWV ambulances, a critical requirement for the Army Reserve
and Army National Guard.
ARMY AVIATION PROGRAMS
During the 114th Congress, legacy rotorcraft platforms,
including the CH-47, UH-60, and AH-64, continued to be operated
at high operational tempos in very challenging environments. As
a result of these high operational tempos, continued upgrade
and reset efforts were required for these legacy platforms. The
committee focused oversight efforts on the need to continue to
upgrade and reset these critical equipment platforms for both
the Active and Reserve Components through formal activities and
legislative action. The committee activity during the 114th
Congress built on the actions from the 113th Congress. With
respect to rotorcraft programs, oversight activities focused on
the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI); unfunded
requirements for Army and Marine Corps rotorcraft
modernization; and the continued need for upgraded aircraft
survivability equipment (ASE), in particular ASE for those
rotorcraft engaged in Operation Inherent Resolve. The committee
also conducted oversight on the initiation of modernization
programs, such as the Joint Future Vertical Lift program, as
well as the critical need to rapidly develop and field advanced
aircraft survivability equipment upgrades to provide warning
and protection against evolving surface-to-air missile threats.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
hearing on the budget request for fiscal year 2016 to address
the effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground force and
rotorcraft modernization programs, given the complex security
environment. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
held a classified briefing on June 18, 2015, to gain a better
understanding of the current and future threats facing U.S.
rotorcraft. On March 16, 2016, the subcommittee held a hearing
on Department of Defense rotorcraft modernization programs to
conduct oversight on the budget request, and covered additional
issues such as the Army's ARI, the requirements for rotorcraft
survivability equipment and degraded visual environment
technology, the Marine Corps V-22 tiltrotor program, and the
Air Force's strategy to replace the UH-1N rotorcraft currently
used for security at nuclear sites and complexes. The
subcommittee also held a hearing on the recommendations from
the National Commission of the Future of the Army, where the
Commission's recommendations regarding the Army's ARI were
discussed in detail. Based on this hearing, the committee
concurred with the Commission's recommendation regarding the
ARI, which would retain some AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in
the Army National Guard, as well as noted the requirement to
permanently station a combat aviation brigade in Korea, as well
as in Europe.
H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016, as passed by the House, authorized an
additional $95.5 million to accelerate an additional 8 UH-60A
to UH-60L conversions for the Army National Guard. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee
also noted the maturity of the current AH-64E production line
and future year requirements encouraged the Secretary of the
Army to seek congressional approval of a multiyear contract
award in the fiscal year 2017 budget request for AH-64E Apache
Attack helicopters. Such a multiyear contract could potentially
save over a hundred million dollars over a 5-year period.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included section 111 that required the
Chief, National Guard Bureau to issue guidance within 180 days
after the date of the enactment of the Act that prioritized UH-
60 helicopter upgrades within the Army National Guard to those
units with the highest flight hour aircraft and highest
utilization rates. Public Law 114-92 included section 113 that
required the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2016, that
contained detailed options for the potential acceleration of
the replacement of all UH-60A helicopters of the Army National
Guard. Public Law 114-92 authorized an additional $128.0
million for 8 additional UH-60M Black Hawks for the Army
National Guard. Public Law 114-92 authorized an additional
$110.0 million that addressed an Army unfunded requirement for
improved countermeasures to better protect deployed AH-64E
helicopters against the latest and most lethal threats. Public
Law 114-92 included section 1054 that limited transfers of
certain AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Army National Guard
to the regular Army.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included legislation
informed by subcommittee activity to include: authorized
multiyear procurement (MYP) contract authority for AH-64 Apache
attack helicopters, and UH-60M and HH-60M Black Hawk utility
helicopters, and also authorized a study by a federally funded
research and development center (FFRDC) on technologies with
the potential to prevent and mitigate helicopter crashes. H.R.
4909, as passed by the House, also included additional funding
to address unfunded requirements as identified by the Chief of
Staff of the Army, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Chief of
Staff of the Air Force: an additional $440.2 million for 36 UH-
60M helicopters; an additional $190.0 million for 5 AH-64E
helicopters; an additional $110.0 million for 17 UH-72 light
utility helicopters; an additional $72.0 million for CH-47
Chinook heavy lift helicopter modifications; an additional
$150.0 million for 2 V-22 tilt rotorcraft to prevent a break in
the current multiyear procurement contract; and an additional
$80.0 million for the Air Force UH-1N replacement program. H.R.
4909, as passed by the House, also provided an additional
$180.7 million for rotorcraft survivability equipment.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, would authorize MYP contract authority for AH-64Es,
UH-60Ms, and HH-60Ms. S.2943 would also authorize the FFRDC
study on technologies with the potential to prevent or mitigate
helicopter crashes. S. 2943 authorized an additional $13.3
million for rotorcraft survivability equipment.
ARMY COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS
Given the growing importance of battlefield communications
networks in global combat operations, the committee continued
to aggressively monitor the Army's plans for its future
battlefield network and the supporting research programs now in
place, to include rigorous oversight of the Army's Tactical
Network Modernization roadmap. From an Army communications
perspective, the focus of committee activity during the 114th
Congress remained on ensuring full and open competition for
Army communication and network programs, working to ensure
innovation and timely improvements to legacy systems, and
reviewing the acquisition strategy for the Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) program.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
hearing on the budget request for fiscal year 2016 to address
the effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground force and
rotorcraft modernization programs, given the complex security
environment. The subcommittee held a hearing, ``Army and Marine
Corps Ground Force Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year
2017 Budget Request'' where Army and Marine Corps tactical
network and communications program were reviewed in detail,
specifically the Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit Radio
(HMS), the Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio (MNVR) program,
and the WIN-T program.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee continued to support the Army's larger vision of a
radio marketplace that drives innovation and technology
improvement over the course of the program. The committee also
supported moving forward with an accelerated competition for
both the dismounted and mounted versions of the Manpack radio
and driving to produce improvements through the planned
delivery order competition.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included section 237 that required a
federally funded research and development center to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of current and future requirements and
capabilities of the Army with respect to air-land ad hoc,
mobile tactical communications and data networks, including the
technological feasibility, suitability, and survivability of
such networks.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army and the Director
of the Defense Technology Security Administration to provide a
briefing on the potential use of new radio waveforms for
tactical communications that may be available via a non-
developmental item acquisition approach, and the potential
effects of U.S. Government policy changes on this industrial
sector and on the ability of warfighters and our international
partners to access innovative radio technologies. The committee
also noted its support for the goals of the MNVR program and
noted the importance of modernizing battlefield communications
as a critical priority for the Army. The committee encouraged
the Army to maintain its testing schedule and, if testing
proves successful, its production schedule in order to meet
fielding requirements.
ORGANIZATIONAL CLOTHING AND INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT
The committee continued to devote substantial attention to
the oversight of the research, development, and procurement of
organizational clothing and individual equipment and other
complementary personal protective equipment programs during the
114th Congress. The committee focused efforts primarily on the
Army's soldier protection system, small arms modernization
strategies and associated industrial base, modular handgun
system, enhanced small caliber ammunition programs, as well as
ongoing weight reduction and acquisition strategies for
personal protective equipment (PPE).
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a
hearing on the budget request for fiscal year 2016 that
addressed the effectiveness of Army and Marine Corps ground
force and rotorcraft modernization programs, given the complex
security environment. The subcommittee held a hearing on Army
and Marine Corps Ground Force Modernization Programs and the
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request where issues related to Army
and Marine Corps individual equipment were discussed in detail
such as: weight reduction efforts for PPE, PPE specifically
designed for female soldiers and marines, advances in combat
helmet technology, the modular handgun system test and
evaluation program, and standardizing enhanced small caliber
ammunition between the Army and Marine Corps.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee continued to highlight the importance of modernizing
and reducing weight for PPE and small arms. The committee
continued to encourage and recommend a weapon system approach
to PPE acquisition, in particular body armor, with an
established procurement line item for PPE that could improve
the performance of these systems through more enhanced
integration efforts. The committee continued to encourage the
Department of Defense (DOD) to take the necessary actions to
maintain at least two vendors as part of the PPE critical
industrial base for hard and soft armor components. In H. Rept.
114-102, the committee also directed the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the senior military services acquisition
executives, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 1, 2016, on the current state of the
small arms production industrial base.
As a result of rigorous oversight activity performed by the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, to include
meetings with senior DOD and military officials as well as
industry coalitions regarding PPE acquisition reform measures,
H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016, as passed by the House, included section 860 that
required the Secretary of Defense to use to the maximum extent
practicable best value contracting strategies instead of lowest
price, technically acceptable strategies for PPE acquisition.
H.R. 1735, as passed by the House, also required the Secretary
of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 1, 2016, regarding the current use of two
different types of 5.56mm ammunition in combat by the Army and
the Marine Corps.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included section 884 that ensured best
value criteria is used to the maximum extent practicable for
PPE. Public Law 114-92 authorized the budget request for fiscal
year 2016 for the Army's Soldier Protection System, and
authorized full funding for Department of Defense PPE programs.
Public Law 114-92 required the Secretary of the Army and
Secretary of the Navy to jointly submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on Army and Marine Corps
modernization plans for small arms. Public Law 114-92 also
required a study on the use of different types of enhanced
small caliber ammunition by the Army and Marine Corps.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee supported the advancement of the development and
procurement of lighter, stronger, and more advanced PPE systems
for all soldiers, while also ensuring women entering combat
roles are fully and correctly equipped. The committee also
directed a briefing on the plans to improve current body armor
and PPE systems, as well as consider the specific needs of
female warfighters, and required the Comptroller General of the
United States to review all Department of Defense individual
equipment initiatives being resourced to help ``lighten the
warfighters load.''
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included legislation
that required the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Army
and the Marine Corps are using one standard type of enhanced
5.56mm rifle ammunition in combat, not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of the Act. H.R. 4909, as
passed by the House, also provided an additional $22.0 million
for Marine Corps enhanced combat helmets, fully funding an
unfunded requirement as identified by the Commandant of the
Marine Corps. H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, also included
legislation that required the Army and Marine Corps to develop
a joint acquisition strategy for PPE and organizational
clothing and individual equipment specifically designed to meet
the unique physical requirements of female service members.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, would require the Secretary of Defense to
standardize enhanced 5.56mm small caliber ammunition for the
Army and Marine Corps.
FIGHTER FORCE STRUCTURE
During the 114th Congress, the committee continued to
investigate the adequacy of fighter force structure in both the
Navy and the Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and
Land Forces held a hearing on these issues on March 26, 2015:
``Combat Aviation Modernization Program and the Fiscal Year
2016 Budget Request.'' The Navy witness testified that F/A-18A/
B/C/D aircraft are reaching the end of their projected service
life and will require replacement or modifications to further
extend their service life to eventual deployment of the F-35
aircraft. The witness noted that the Department of the Navy's
strike fighter shortfall is projected to reach 134 aircraft in
2020. Also at the hearing on March 26, 2015, the Air Force
witness testified to an Air Force requirement for 1,900 fighter
aircraft, but fiscal constraints resulted in a need to retire
fighter aircraft leaving the Air Force significantly below its
requirement of 1,900 fighter aircraft. The Air Force noted that
it planned to retire about 164 A-10 aircraft in fiscal year
2016. To maintain remaining force structure, Air Force
officials informed the subcommittee that any shortfall
mitigation will include: executing funded sustainment and fleet
management actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30, and 32
aircraft; newer block 40 and 50 service life extension; and
targeted modernization and examination of the overall force
structure to ensure viable warfighting capabilities are
maintained.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also held
a hearing on the F-35 program on April 14, 2015: ``Update on
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program and the Fiscal Year
2016 Budget Request.'' For fiscal year 2017, the subcommittee
held a hearing on February 4, 2016, ``Naval Strike Fighters:
Issues and Concerns''; a hearing on March 23, 2016, ``Update on
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program and the Fiscal Year 2017
Budget Request''; a field hearing at Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base on June 18, 2016, ``Air Dominance and the Critical Role of
Fifth Generation Fighters''; a follow-on hearing to the
aforementioned field hearing on July 13, 2016, ``Air Dominance
and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighters.''
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) authorized an increase of 12 F/A-18F
aircraft for the Navy, an increase of 6 F-35B aircraft for the
Marine Corps, and the requested procurement to extend the life
of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B fleets. Public Law 114-92 also
authorized the entire Air Force request for modifications to
its A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35 fleets, and included a
provision that prohibited the Air Force from retiring any A-10
aircraft until after December 31, 2016, but allowed only 18 A-
10 aircraft to be placed into back-up inventory status.
Additionally, Public Law 114-92 authorized the budget request
of $9.2 billion for 57 F-35 aircraft and $1.9 billion for F-35
development.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, included legislation
that would prevent retirements of A-10 aircraft, but would
allow the Secretary of the Air Force to transition the A-10
unit at Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base, Indiana, to an F-16
unit in fiscal year 2018, as the Secretary had proposed in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2017. H.R. 4909, as
passed by the House, provided an additional $1.4 billion for 11
additional F-35 aircraft to address unfunded requirements
identified by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Chief of
Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps. H.R.
4909, as passed by the House, also provided an additional $1.4
billion for 14 additional F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, similar to H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, would
prevent retirements of A-10 aircraft, but would allow the
Secretary of the Air Force to transition the A-10 unit at Fort
Wayne Air National Guard Base, Indiana, to an F-16 unit in
fiscal year 2018, as the Secretary had proposed in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2017, and also
requires Government Accountability Office to assess the
conclusions and assertions contained in the Secretary and Chief
of Staff's report on the F-35A Initial Operational Test and
Evaluation. S. 2943 would also prohibit the availability of
funds for the Air Force to be obligated for the purpose of
scrapping, destroying, or otherwise disposing of any A-10
aircraft in any storage status in the Aerospace Maintenance and
Regeneration Group that have serviceable wings or other
components that could be used to prevent total active inventory
A-10 aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable
status due to unserviceable wings or other components.
F-35
During the 114th Congress, the committee continued
oversight of the F-35 program.
At a hearing on April 14, 2015, before the Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces, ``Update on the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) Program and the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget
Request,'' the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Director
of Acquisition and Sourcing testified that technical challenges
in 2014 forced the Department of Defense to make unexpected
changes to its development and testing plans, and that key
challenges affecting the program were a structural failure on
the F-35B durability test aircraft, an engine failure, and
higher-than-expected amount of test growth largely to address
software rework. The GAO witness also noted that F-35 system
reliability has been limited by poor engine reliability, which
will take additional time and resources to achieve reliability
goals. The GAO witness additionally noted that affordability
remains the biggest challenge facing the program since annual
procurement costs are expected to rise from $14 to $15 billion,
and remain at that level for nearly a decade, while other
significant fiscal demands weigh on the Department of Defense
and the Nation.
On June 23, 2014, an F-35A stationed at Eglin Air Force
Base, Florida, had a serious flight mishap resulting from an
engine failure and fire. The cause of the engine failure and
fire was determined to be excessive rubbing between an engine
stator and adjacent plate seals. The F-35 Joint Program Office
and the engine manufacturer have identified both short-term and
long-term corrections to this problem. The flight test schedule
has been minimally affected. The committee continues to monitor
both the short-term and long-term corrections to F-35 engines.
Members of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
also participated in a congressional delegation to Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida, to receive briefings, interact with F-35
pilots and maintenance personnel, and to observe F-35
operations on March 27, 2015. Among other issues, committee
Members noted significant unit-level problems with the maturity
and accuracy of the F-35 autonomic logistics information
system, a system which is used to determine the F-35's
maintenance status and direct required maintenance actions.
With some minor reductions, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92),
authorized the budget request of $9.2 billion for 57 F-35
aircraft and $1.9 billion for F-35 development, and provided an
increase of $846.0 million for 6 additional F-35B aircraft for
the Marine Corps. Public Law 114-92 also included a provision
requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of
the F-35's engine program that will include an assessment of
the reliability, growth and cost history of the engine; and a
thorough assessment of the F-35 engine fire on June 23, 2014.
Additionally, Public Law 114-92 included a provision requiring
the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report
on the F-35 autonomic logistics information system that
includes fielding status, development schedule, views of
maintenance personnel, the effect of the autonomic logistics
information system on F-35 operational availability, the
ability of the autonomic logistics information system to be
deployed on ships and land-based locations, and costs for
developing and fielding the system.
On June 18, 2016, and July 13, 2016, the Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces held hearings both entitled, ``Air
Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighter
Aircraft.'' The witnesses in these two hearings informed the
committee that near-peer adversaries were closing a fighter
aircraft capability and capacity gap with U.S. forces, and that
the currently planned procurement rate of 48 F-35A aircraft per
year would not be sufficient to address Department of the Air
Force fighter aircraft shortfalls and requirements.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, contained legislation
that directed the Comptroller General of the United States to
conduct an analysis of the sustainment support strategy for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. H.R. 4909, as passed by the
House, also included an additional $1.4 billion for 11
additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to address unfunded
requirements as identified by the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the
Marine Corps.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, contains legislation that would: require the
Secretary of Defense, no later than March 31, 2017, to submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on potential
options for the future management of the Joint Strike Fighter
program; require the Secretary of Defense, not later than March
31, 2017, to submit to the congressional defense committees a
report that contains the basic elements of an acquisition
program baseline for F-35 JSF Block 4 follow-on modernization
program; and direct the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct an analysis of the sustainment support
strategy for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.
BOMBER FORCE STRUCTURE
The committee continues to maintain rigorous oversight of
our nation's bomber fleet. With regard to B-21 force structure,
the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
directed the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2017, that
estimates the number of B-21 bomber aircraft needed to meet the
combatant commanders' requirements. The report, which may
include a classified annex, shall include: a detailed
explanation of the strategy and associated force-sizing-and-
shaping-constructs, associated scenarios and assumptions used
to conduct the analysis; a range of numbers to meet
requirements for B-21 bombers given best-case and worst-case
assumptions, and the associated risk based on Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff risk management classifications; and a
detailed transition plan that integrates the B-21 into the
current bomber fleet through 2040. Additionally, section 238 of
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017, requires the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a
semiannual report to the congressional defense committees and
the Comptroller General of the United States on the B-21 bomber
aircraft program.
With regard to overall bomber force structure, section 150
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) required the Secretary of the Air Force to
notify Congress of any proposed bomber retirements as well as
the rationale for such retirement, the effects of the
retirement, and how the Secretary will mitigate any risks
relating to the retirement.
As to B-21, the committee notes that the Secretary of the
Air Force has proposed significant investments for technology
development and engineering, manufacturing and development. In
the budget request for fiscal year 2016, the administration
requested $1.25 billion to support B-21. However, Public Law
114-92 authorized $566.2 million, as a result of a late
contract award. The budget request for fiscal year 2017
included $1.36 billion and was fully authorized in S. 2943. The
committee will maintain aggressive oversight of the new bomber
acquisition strategy to ensure that the Air Force develops an
affordable aircraft to timely meet future requirements.
With regard to legacy bombers, the committee continues to
ensure that the Air Force maintains, modernizes, and upgrades
the existing fleet of bomber aircraft in order to preserve
effective capabilities needed to meet current and future threat
target sets. Public Law 114-92 and S. 2943 authorized the
modernization funds requested by Air Force for the B-1, B-2,
and B-52 aircraft. The committee will continue to maintain
oversight of current bomber aircraft inventory requirements and
modernization plans to ensure that the Air Force maintains a
sufficient, credible, and lethal fixed-wing aircraft with
conventional and strategic weapons delivery capability to
support all aspects of the national military strategy.
AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT
During the 114th Congress, the committee maintained active
oversight of Air Force aerial refueling aircraft modernization
and recapitalization programs. Until the KC-46A is operational
and procured in sufficient numbers, the KC-135 and KC-10 will
remain the primary providers of U.S. air-refueling. As such,
the committee included section 146 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92),
which placed a prohibition on the availability of funds for
retirement of KC-10 aircraft with few exceptions to be
determined by the Secretary of the Air Force. Additionally, the
committee supported the Secretary of the Air Force's efforts to
modernize the avionics of the KC-10 fleet of tankers to
maintain relevant and effective aerial refueling capabilities
by fully funding the Air Force's modernization request.
With regard to the KC-135 fleet, limited fiscal resources
are available to the Air Force for recapitalization of all 395
aircraft, necessitating the continued maintenance and operation
of legacy aircraft. Consequently, the committee supported the
Secretary of the Air Force's efforts to modernize avionics of
the KC-135 fleet by fully funding the Air Force's modernization
request in Public Law 114-92 and S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Furthermore, the
committee continues to provide aggressive extensive oversight
intended to ensure the timely and efficient recapitalization of
the Air Force's KC-135 tanker fleet with new KC-46 aerial
refueling aircraft. As such, the committee supports the
Secretary of the Air Force's continued investment in this
program.
INTERTHEATER AND INTRATHEATER AIRLIFT
The committee provided close oversight of Air Force
intertheater and intratheater airlift aircraft inventories and
capabilities to ensure that a robust and effective fleet of
airlift aircraft is maintained in the Air Force inventory to
meet all mobility airlift requirements of the Department of
Defense. Regarding intertheater airlift aircraft capabilities,
the committee included section 147 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92),
which restricted funds for transfer of C-130H aircraft. This
restriction applies until 90 days after the Air Force and Army
jointly certify to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives that they have met the
requirements required in section 147.
Additionally, the committee is concerned about the Air
Force's plans to adequately fund C-130H modernization programs
that are critical to ensuring the future utility of this
aircraft. Accordingly, Public Law 114-92 and S. 2943, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
authorized additional funds for C-130 AMP, C-130H Electric Prop
Control System, C-130H In-flight Prop Balancing System, Eight
Bladed Propeller, and the T-56 3.5 Engine Mod.
SURFACE WARFARE PROGRAMS
The committee continues its oversight of the Department of
Defense's shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments
are made and the Navy achieves the force structure, with
appropriate capabilities, needed to meet requirements. Through
its oversight activities, the committee faces the challenge of
balancing current demands on an aging fleet within current
economic constraints. As of December 15, 2015, the Navy
indicated they currently support 272 deployable battle force
ships. This available force structure contrasts the Navy's 2013
requirements projection of 308 ships and the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review Independent Panel requirement of 346 ships.
Despite these shortfalls, the committee seeks to obtain the
required capability and provide stability to the shipbuilding
industrial base.
Preeminent in the Navy force structure is the aircraft
carrier, which represents the embodiment of the United States'
ability to project power. The Navy has developed a new aircraft
carrier design and is in the final construction of the lead
ship for the Ford-class aircraft carriers. Technologies
introduced with the USS Gerald R. Ford have challenged the Navy
to maintain cost controls on the lead ship and subsequent
ships. To address these cost issues, section 121 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) included a provision that amended section 122 of
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) by requiring the Secretary of
the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to certify design
and engineering changes in excess of $5.0 million. Furthermore,
section 122 of Public Law 114-92 was also included, which
amended section 122 of Public Law 109-364 and reduced the cost
limitation for the aircraft carrier designated as CVN-79 by
$100.0 million to $11.40 billion.
The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also
continues its oversight of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
program. Section 123 of Public Law 114-92 included a provision
that would restrict funding associated with LCS-25 and LCS-26
until: (1) the Navy provides certain reports about the LCS
program; and (2) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council makes
certain certifications about the LCS program. Section 123 of S.
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017, would require additional reports on LCS Mission Packages
and a restriction from deviating from revision three of the LCS
acquisition strategy until the Secretary of Defense provides a
certification.
Finally, the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany S.
1356, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Committee Print No. 2), indicated that ``the lack of
fiscal support in the fiscal year 2016 FYDP [Future Years
Defense Program] and previous requests for the early retirement
of some of these cruisers has led the conferees to question the
administration's resolve to retain all of these cruisers
through the end of their service lives.'' To address this
concern, section 1024 of Public Law 114-92 and section 1024 of
S. 2943 would limit the obligation and expenditure of funds
associated with the retirement, inactivation, or storage of
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Whidbey Island-class amphibious
ships.
UNDERSEA WARFARE PROGRAMS
The committee conducted rigorous oversight of the Navy's
undersea warfare domain and placed increased emphasis on a new
program that will be used to replace the current fleet of
ballistic missile submarines. This replacement submarine
program, SSBN(X), is projected to cost over $1.00 billion for
the design and construction of the 12 submarines and will be
the second largest Department of Defense acquisition program.
Considering this program is expected to support 70 percent of
the nation's strategic deterrence capability, the committee is
resolved to acquiring the 12 submarines and is supportive of
authorizing an efficient contract for the construction of the
SSBN(X) program. Section 1022 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) established a fund called the
National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to manage the allocations of
monies to support the SSBN(X) program. Section 1022 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) expanded the fund and provided additional authority
to enter into economic order quantities for common components
with other nuclear powered vessels that the Congressional
Budget Office has indicated would save several hundred million
dollars for each submarine. This section also provided special
transfer authority to the Department of Defense to support this
program. In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016, the committee required a report from the Comptroller
General of the United States that would assess the technical
maturity of the SSBN(X) program before to assure the committee
that a stable design is obtained before SSBN(X) construction is
started. Finally, section 1023 of S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, would provide an
authorization for multiyear procurement of critical components
to support continuous production of the Common Missile
Compartment.
MANNED AND UNMANNED INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS
Manned and unmanned intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) system programs have come to constitute a
significant component of the overall Department of Defense
force structure. The capability provided by these assets is
critical to sustaining deterrence and warfighting capability of
U.S. forces. The committee has continued to focus on the
budget, cost, schedule, and performance outcomes of major
manned and unmanned aerial systems programs and examine the ISR
enterprise for balance in collection and analysis capabilities.
Also, close scrutiny of Office of the Secretary of Defense ISR
policy formulation and oversight has been and will continue to
be of interest to the committee. Long-standing concerns of the
committee remain: lack of an adequate long-term ISR
architecture and acquisition strategy; lack of supporting
analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance
collection programs data output with adequate resources to
process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; and
unnecessary proliferation of manned and unmanned vehicles and
sensors. The committee expects the Joint Staff and Joint
Requirements Oversight Council to take a more active role in
coordinating ISR system acquisition and coordinating employment
with the combatant commanders.
In the first session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held a hearing on
March 26, 2015, on Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force combat
aviation programs: ``Combat Aviation Modernization Programs and
the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request.'' Witnesses for this
hearing included the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Deputy
Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation; Director of the
Navy Air Warfare Division; Military Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition; and the Air Force
Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Requirements. Among other
issues, this hearing reviewed the Department of Defense budget
requests for unmanned aerial systems for fiscal year 2016,
including the requests for the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-9 Reaper
unmanned aerial systems, and the U-2.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) authorized one additional RQ-4 Global Hawk
unmanned air system over the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2016, the budget request for the U-2, and added
$150.0 million for additional MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial
systems. Public Law 114-92 also included a provision that
prohibits the Department of the Air Force from retiring any E-
8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System and E-3C
Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft in fiscal years
2016 and 2017.
H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House, prohibited the
availability of funds for retirement of Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft in fiscal year
2018. H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, also prohibited the
availability of funds for retirement of U-2 surveillance
aircraft. H.R. 4909, as passed by the House, also included an
additional $95.0 million for one additional Navy Triton
Unmanned Aerial System; an additional $95.1 million for
critical upgrades to the Army's MQ-1C improved Gray Eagle UAS
platforms; and an additional $35.0 million for Air Force MQ-9
Reaper UAS auto take-off and landing capability.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, would prohibit the availability of funds for
retirement of JSTARS aircraft in fiscal year 2018; and limit
the availability of fiscal year 2017 and coming year funds for
the JSTARS recapitalization program unless the contract for
engineering and manufacturing development uses a firm fixed-
price contract structure or the Secretary of Defense waives the
limitation in the national security interests of the United
States. S. 2943 also would require the Air Force to transfer
the operation of a significant number of remotely piloted
aircraft to enlisted personnel by September 30, 2020, for the
Active Duty Component, and by September 30, 2023, as the
required date for transition by the Air Force Reserve and Air
National Guard.
EMERGING ADVANCED WEAPONS CAPABILITIES
Department of Defense investment in science and technology
often leads to the development of new advanced weapons
capabilities that contribute to the technological superiority
of U.S. military forces. Maintaining technology overmatch of
current and potential adversaries is a significant part of the
qualitative advantage of U.S. forces, but is increasingly
difficult in an environment of globalized technologies and
asymmetric combinations of high-tech and low-tech capabilities.
The committee continued to monitor technological developments
and support transition of the most promising ones, such as
directed energy, hypersonics, and autonomy.
In the 114th Congress, the committee has closely examined
organizing concepts provided by the military services and the
Office of Secretary of Defense as demonstration projects become
viable programs, and the respective services develop
acquisition plans in support of fielding directed energy
capabilities. Additionally, the committee has expanded its
focus to take a similar look at other emerging advanced weapons
capabilities, such as hypersonics and autonomy, to see how they
can contribute to new security strategies, and to ensure that
they are supported by rigorous technical analysis and relevant
concepts of employment.
The committee held related hearings and briefings,
including: a hearing on November 19, 2015, ``Advancing the
Science and Acceptance of Autonomy for Future Defense
Systems''; a briefing on December 16, 2015, ``Defense Science
Board Report on 21st Century Military Operations in a Complex
Electromagnetic Environment.''
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee included several directive reporting requirements,
including: an assessment of the directed energy industrial
base; a review of the combatant commander requirements for
directed energy weapons; a review by the Comptroller General of
the measures and actions being taken to mitigate the loss of
access to current sources of trusted microelectronics; a review
by the Comptroller General of technology transition activities
within the Department of Defense; and a review of the
transition of technologies from the Strategic Capabilities
Office.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that would require a
plan for advanced technology war games; a provision that would
extend authorization for the Rapid Innovation Program; a
provision that would establish a cooperative research and
development program with Israel to develop anti-tunneling
defense capabilities; a provision that would authorize a
technology offset fund; and a provision that would establish a
pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology
programs.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee included several directive reporting requirements,
including: a briefing on the plan for demonstrating and
deploying a common railgun mount; a briefing on Air Force
directed energy initiatives; a briefing on a technology roadmap
for addressing gaps to counter the potential threats from
terrorist or state actor uses of small unmanned aerial systems;
a briefing on a technology roadmap for enabling technology
needed for operational directed energy weapon systems; and a
briefing assessing the test range needs and investments to meet
testing required for fifth and sixth generation aircraft and
air armament, including hypersonic strike weapons.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes a provision that would require notification
for the use of certain funds for prototyping and
experimentation in the Navy; a provision that would require the
designation of a senior defense official with principal
responsibility for directed energy weapons, and redesignate an
office to serve as the Joint Directed Energy Transition Office
to improve the rapid fielding of directed energy systems; a
provision that would establish a pilot program for the
modernization of electromagnetic spectrum warfare systems and
electronic warfare systems; and a provision that would require
a report on future electronic warfare concepts and
technologies.
NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
In the 114th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of the atomic energy defense activities of the
Department of Energy and the nuclear policies and programs of
the Department of Defense to ensure the safety, security,
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Particular emphasis has been placed on Department of Energy and
Department of Defense nuclear modernization plans, including
but not limited to infrastructure investments, warhead life
extension programs, stockpile stewardship and management plans,
delivery system modernization, nuclear command and control,
cost savings and efficiency initiatives, and security.
In the first session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 24,
2015, on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Atomic
Energy Defense'' and a hearing on April 15, 2015, on the
``Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces.''
Respectively, these hearings examined the nuclear-related
budget requests for the Department of Energy and the Department
of Defense.
On October 7, 2015, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
held a hearing on ``Plutonium Disposition and the MOX
Project,'' to examine in detail the largest construction
project taking place within the Department of Energy's Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation program. On November 3, 2015, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on ``Future
Options for the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent--Views from Project
Atom.'' This hearing featured nongovernmental expert witnesses
and focused on discussion of long-term plans and programs for
the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
On June 25, 2015, the full committee held a hearing on
``Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century,'' with witnesses that
included the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary
of Energy, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This hearing was the culmination of a focused ``Nuclear
Oversight Week'' conducted by the full committee, which also
included a hearing by the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on June 25, 2015, consisting of an ``Update on
Findings and Recommendations of the 2014 Department of Defense
Nuclear Enterprise Review.'' The committee's Nuclear Oversight
Week also included a classified briefing for the full committee
on June 24, 2015, on foreign nuclear weapon programs and
capabilities and a classified briefing for the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces on June 16, 2015, on the health and vitality
of the nuclear weapon stockpile, systems, and enterprise.
In addition, during the first session of the 114th
Congress, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted other
classified briefings, including: (1) on January 27, 2015, a
briefing on the Russian Federation's nuclear doctrine and
capabilities; (2) on October 22, 2015, a joint briefing with
the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on security of
U.S. nuclear forces and implementation of recommendations of
the Nuclear Enterprise Review; and (3) on November 17, 2015, a
briefing on the status of the nuclear command, control, and
communications system.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), included several legislative provisions
related to nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security
enterprise. This includes provisions to improve accountability
and transparency of nuclear-related programs, enable cost
savings within certain procurement programs, improve the
responsiveness of nuclear weapons programs within the
Department of Energy, track the implementation of reforms to
governance and management of the nuclear security enterprise,
and place limits or provide policy direction to certain
programs.
In the second session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on January 12,
2016, on the ``National Academies Study on Peer Review and
Design Competition in the National Nuclear Security
Administration's National Security Laboratories'' to review the
results of this congressionally mandated study. The
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held hearings on February
11, 2106, on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for Atomic
Energy Defense,'' and on March 2, 2016, on the ``Fiscal Year
2017 Budget Request for Department of Defense Nuclear Forces.''
Respectively, these hearings examined the nuclear-related
budget requests for the Department of Energy and the Department
of Defense.
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held a hearing on
July 14, 2016, on ``President Obama's Nuclear Deterrent
Modernization Plans and Budgets'' to review and conduct
oversight of President Obama's nuclear weapons modernization
plans, budgets, and schedules--and the military requirements
driving them. And on September 7, 2016, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces held a hearing on ``Deferred Maintenance in
the Nuclear Security Enterprise: Safety and Mission Risks''' to
review and assess the state of, and recapitalization plans for,
infrastructure and facilities within the National Nuclear
Security Administration's nuclear security enterprise.
In addition, during the second session of the 114th
Congress, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted other
classified briefings, including: (1) on February 2, 2016, a
briefing on proliferation threats from 3-D printing; and (2) on
March 22, 2016, a briefing on fiscal year 2017 budget request
for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions related to
nuclear deterrence and the nuclear security enterprise. This
includes provisions that would improve processes and adopt best
practices within nuclear-related programs; place limits or
provide policy direction to certain programs; and authorize the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to take
certain actions to protect facilities and assets from threats
posed by unmanned aircraft.
MISSILE DEFENSE
The committee oversees the Department of Defense's efforts
to develop, test, and field layered missile defense
capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed forces,
and its friends and allies against the full range of ballistic
missile threats. Particular emphasis will be placed on U.S.
homeland missile defense capabilities (including the Missile
Defense Agency's proposal and strategy for acquiring a
Redesigned Kill Vehicle), European Phased Adaptive Approach
implementation, continued implementation of other regional
Phased Adaptive Approaches, ensuring an adequate hedging
strategy for the protection of the U.S. homeland, developmental
and operational testing, force structure and inventory
requirements, sensor-to-shooter integration, and science and
technology investments in areas such as directed energy. In the
114th Congress, the committee closely watched the
administration's funding of the missile defense program,
seeking the cost-effective application of resources, and
looking for opportunities to enhance stability of the
industrial base.
The committee will continue to monitor foreign ballistic
missile threats and identify opportunities to strengthen
international missile defense cooperation with allies and
partners such as the State of Israel, Japan, the Commonwealth
of Australia, the Republic of Korea, and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization member states. Department of Defense oversight and
management of missile defense activities, including the roles,
responsibilities, and acquisition policies and procedures of
the Missile Defense Agency and military services will also be
reviewed. The committee will also provide oversight of the
administration's missile defense policy and posture, including
close examination of any administration efforts that may limit
missile defenses as part of a treaty or agreement, and
implications for United States, regional, global security and
strategic stability.
The committee also intends to pay particular attention to
the Army's Patriot air and missile defense program. The Army's
plans call for significant investment over a long term and the
committee will ensure these plans are cost-effective, based on
proven technology, support continued Foreign Military Sales,
and provide maximum deployable capability to combatant
commanders and the warfighter.
During the first session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing regarding the
``Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for Missile Defense Programs.'' The Director of the
Missile Defense Agency, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, and
other subject matter experts all testified.
In addition the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces met for
classified briefings on missile defense programs and adversary
threats. On March 3, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on next-generation missile defense
technology and capability, and on June 2, 2015, the
subcommittee met for a classified briefing regarding missile
defense programs.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), included several legislative provisions
supporting the Ground-based Midcourse Defense and Redesigned
Kill Vehicle programs, missile defense cooperation with Israel,
and the Aegis Ashore program. Additional provisions established
prohibitions on the integration of missile defense systems with
systems made by either the Russian Federation or the People's
Republic of China.
During the second session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing regarding ``The
Missile Defeat Posture and Strategy of the United States--the
FY17 President's Budget Request.'' The Director of the Missile
Defense Agency, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, and several
other experts testified in support of the President's fiscal
year 2017 budget request.
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held two
classified briefings on missile defense threats and
capabilities. On March 16, 2016, the subcommittee met to
receive a classified briefing on cruise missile defense--red
vs. blue missile threat, and on June 9, 2016, the subcommittee
met to receive a classified briefing on Joint Capability Mix
study IV--missile defense employment scenarios.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, contains numerous legislative provisions to include
an amendment to the National Missile Defense Act of 1999
(Public Law 106-38), a mandate to the Missile Defense Agency to
create a program of record for defending against hypersonic
boost glide vehicles, direction to the Secretary of Defense for
developing a left-of-launch declaratory policy, and additional
prohibitions to the sharing of missile defense information and
systems.
NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE
In the 114th Congress, the committee continued to oversee
the national security space programs of the Department of
Defense, including the combat support agencies and elements of
the Department of Defense that are part of the Intelligence
Community. The committee placed particular attention on assured
access to space; space acquisition strategies; mitigating risks
that could create gaps in space capabilities for key warfighter
needs; providing affordability and increasing government buying
power; and appropriately leveraging commercial satellite
services.
The committee also continued to monitor foreign space
threats and assessed the Department's space security and
defense program concerning space situational awareness, space
protection, space control, and operationally responsive space
activities. The committee provided oversight of the
administration's space policy, posture, and any related
international agreements. Renewed attention was also placed on
efforts to improve governance and management across the
national security space enterprise.
In the first session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 17,
2015, on ``Assuring Assured Access to Space.'' The hearing
consisted of two panels with witnesses from government and
industry. The hearing focused on the current state and strategy
for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, including
challenges, opportunities, and perspectives related to our
national security space launch activities.
On March 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016 National Security
Space Activities.'' Senior government leaders served as
witnesses for the hearing which focused on the fiscal year 2016
budget request for the Department of Defense in the context of
the posture of national security space. The subcommittee also
met in a closed session, following the open hearing, to receive
further classified details regarding national security space
investments and strategies.
On June 26, 2015, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held
a hearing on ``Assuring National Security Space: Investing in
American Industry to End Reliance on Russian Rocket Engines.''
Witnesses from government and industry testified on the
necessary investments in the U.S. industrial base and the
planned acquisition strategy to develop a U.S. rocket
propulsion system to end reliance on Russia. The hearing
highlighted the risks, opportunities, and perspectives
regarding the investments to meet national security space
launch requirements.
In addition to these hearings, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces received a classified briefing on June 10,
2015, on the foreign counterspace threats and the Department of
Defense's posture and plans to respond to such threats.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included several legislative provisions
related to national security space. Public Law 114-92 included
multiple provisions regarding space launch, organization of
management of space within the Department of Defense, improved
acquisition of space capabilities, and placed limits or
provided policy direction to certain programs to ensure
warfighter requirements are being met.
During the second session of the 114th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on March 15,
2016, on ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for National
Security Space.'' Senior military and civilian leaders served
as witnesses to testify on the fiscal year 2017 budget request
for the Department of Defense in the context of national
security space. The subcommittee also met in a closed session,
following the open hearing, to receive further classified
details regarding national security space investments and
strategies.
On September 27, 2016, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
held a hearing on ``National Security Space: 21st Century
Challenges, 20th Century Organization.'' A former commander of
U.S. Strategic Command, a former Director of the National
Reconnaissance Office, and a former Deputy Secretary of Defense
testified on challenges within the U.S. space enterprise
related to organization, management, and command authorities.
In addition to these hearings, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces received a classified briefing on June 14 on
space security war games, plans, and investments. On December
7, 2016, the subcommittee received a briefing on national
security space acquisitions.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions dealing with
national security space. S. 2943 includes provisions covering
space launch, satellite communications, the Global Positioning
System, space battle management command and control, the
Department's organization and management of space, and would
place limits or provided policy direction to certain programs
to ensure warfighter requirements are being met.
Emerging Threats and Capabilities
INVESTMENT IN FUTURE CAPABILITIES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Department of Defense faces difficult choices as it
balances the competing needs of capabilities for current
operations and those projected for future conflicts. In order
to address the latter, investments need to be made in the
Department's Science and Technology (S&T) programs, and aligned
appropriately with continued development and procurement
programs to position the Department to meet future challenges.
S&T investments can also be leveraged to support broader
acquisition improvements or defense industrial base sustainment
activities by creatively utilizing competitive or operational
prototyping, technical transition or integration, or
requirements maturation.
Preparing for the challenges of the future, the Department
must create a portfolio of technological options that can
address the perceived threats identified in the defense
planning process, as well as the emergence of unanticipated
events or strategic competitors. Emphasis should be placed not
only on support to acquisition roadmaps, but also on
capabilities to institutionalize adaptability. Doing that will
require better integration of intelligence into the S&T cycle,
as well as better cognizance of global developments and
industry-based independent research and development. It will
also require a solid foundation to allow for adaptability,
which means having world-class people and facilities in which
to conduct certain types of research and development.
The committee continued to encourage the Department to plan
and execute a balanced S&T program that ensures the U.S.
military can retain superiority for future generations. The
committee has also continued to examine how S&T investments are
integrated into strategic and operational plans to ensure that
the investments being made, including in people and
infrastructure, are properly aligned.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities conducted several hearings within this area,
including: a hearing on March 26, 2015, ``Department of Defense
(DOD) Fiscal Year 2016 Science and Technology Programs: Laying
the Groundwork to Maintain Technological Superiority''; a
hearing on November 19, 2015, ``Advancing the Science and
Acceptance of Autonomy for Future Defense Systems''; a briefing
on December 16, 2015, ``Defense Science Board Report on 21st
Century Military Operations in a Complex Electromagnetic
Environment''; a hearing on February 24, 2016, ``Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2017 Science and Technology Programs to
Discuss Defense Innovation to Create the Future Military
Force''; a hearing on September 28, 2016, ``Department of
Defense Laboratories and Their Innovation Through Science and
Engineering in Support of Military Operations''; a classified
briefing on June 14, 2016, ``The Role of Electromagnetic
Spectrum in Future Military Operations''; and a briefing on
December 8, 2016, ``Defense Science Board Summer Study on
Autonomy.''
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee included several directive reporting requirements,
including: an assessment of the directed energy industrial
base; a review of the combatant commander requirements for
directed energy weapons; a review by the Comptroller General of
the United States of the measures and actions being taken to
mitigate the loss of access to current sources of trusted
microelectronics; a review by the Comptroller General of
technology transition activities within the Department of
Defense; and a review of the transition of technologies from
the Strategic Capabilities Office.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that would require a
plan for advanced technology war games; a provision that would
extend the use of educational partnership agreements to support
technology transition; a provision that would require the
services and agencies to develop engagement strategies with
historically black colleges and universities; a provision that
would establish Centers for Science, Technology and Engineering
Partnership; a provision that would authorize a technology
offset fund; a provision that would extend the authorization
for the Global Research Watch Program; a provision that would
establish science and technology activities to support business
system information technology acquisition programs; a provision
that would expand eligibility for financial assistance under
the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation
program; a provision that would establish a pilot program for
streamlining awards for innovative technology programs; a
provision that would codify other transactions authority; a
provision that would establish a cooperative research and
development program with Israel to develop anti-tunneling
defense capabilities; a provision that would modify the direct
hiring authority for certain defense laboratories; a provision
that would establish a pilot program for shaping the workforce
at defense laboratories; and a provision that would extend
authorization for the Rapid Innovation Program.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee included several directive reporting requirements,
including: a briefing on improving data collection efforts in
order to provide complete and analyzable records for grant
awards; a briefing on recent advances in desalination
technologies; a briefing on low energy nuclear reactions; and a
briefing on the potential military applications of
nanomaterials for combat systems.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes a provision that would create a Laboratory
Quality Enhancement Program; a provision that would modify the
section 219 authority available to the defense laboratories; a
provision that would limit the funds available to the Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental until certain information is
provided; a provision that would establish a pilot program to
allow management flexibility at the defense laboratories, test
and evaluation centers, and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency; a provision that would codify the section 1101
personnel authority in title 10; a provision that would make
permanent the rapid innovation program; a provision that would
allow the National Defense University and Defense Acquisition
University the ability to enter into cooperative research and
development agreements; a provision that would create a
manufacturing engineering education grant program; a provision
that would increase the micro-purchase threshold for basic
research efforts; a provision that would create a pilot program
to enhance cooperation between the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency and the military service academies; a provision
that would extend and modify the Defense Acquisition Challenge
Program; a provision that would extend the Small Business
Innovative Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
programs until 2022; a provision that would make permanent and
modify hiring authorities for defense laboratory personnel; and
a provision that would create a pilot program to offer flexible
pay authority for certain technical positions in the defense
laboratories.
CYBER OPERATIONS CAPABILITIES
Cyber operations have taken on an increasingly important
role in military operations, as well as overall in national
security. Accordingly, the committee continued to closely
scrutinize the Department of Defense's cyber operations,
organization, manning, and funding to ensure that the military
has the freedom of maneuver to conduct the range of missions in
the Nation's defense, and when called upon, to support other
interagency and international partners. An important oversight
role for Congress regarding the conduct of defensive and
offensive cyber operations has been to ensure that the proper
legal and policy frameworks are in place and followed. The
committee has also continued to scrutinize military cyber
operations to ensure that they are properly integrated into the
combatant commander's operational plans, and to ensure that
adequate capabilities exist or are in development to employ
these cyberspace operational tools with rigor and discretion to
support a full range of options for the Nation's decision
makers. In the course of monitoring the cybersecurity posture
of the military, the committee has continued to examine the
effects of globalization on the assured integrity of
microelectronics and software.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities conducted several hearings and briefings within
this area, including: a briefing on February 12, 2015, ``Cyber
Operations Quarterly Update''; a hearing on March 4, 2015,
``Cyber Operations: Improving the Military Cyber Security
Posture in an Uncertain Threat Environment''; a hearing on
September 29, 2015, ``Outside Perspectives on the Department of
Defense Cyber Strategy''; a hearing on September 30, 2015,
``Implementing the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy''; a
briefing on September 30, 2015, ``Cyber Operations Quarterly
Update''; a hearing on November 17, 2015, ``Update on Office of
Personnel Management Network Intrusion and Disclosure of
Sensitive Personnel Data''; a briefing on January 12, 2016,
``Cyber Operations Quarterly Update''; a hearing on March 16,
2016, ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command
for Preparing for Operations in the Cyber Domain.''
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee included several directive reporting requirements,
including: a review by the Comptroller General of the United
States assessing the Department of Defense's plans and actions
for providing support to civil authorities in the event of a
domestic cyber event; a briefing by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics detailing
the process for identifying and assessing cyber vulnerabilities
on legacy weapons and mission systems; a briefing by the
Secretary of Defense assessing and validating the multi-source
cyber intelligence collection and analysis needs of the
Department of Defense; and an assessment of potential cyber
vulnerabilities to smart buildings and access control systems.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that would require the
codification of reporting on cyber incidents or penetrations of
networks and information systems of certain contractors in
title 10, United States Code, as well as the addition of
liability protections related to such reporting; a provision
that would reestablish the Commission to Assess the Threat to
the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks; a
provision that would streamline the reporting requirements for
the Joint Federated Assurance Center; a provision that would
establish acquisition authority for the Commander of United
States Cyber Command; a provision that would establish new
cyber workforce hiring authorities for United States Cyber
Command; a provision that would provide authorization for
preparing forces for military cyber operations; a provision
that would designate Department of Defense entities to be
responsible for acquisition of critical cyber capabilities; a
provision that would establish a fund for conducting cyber
vulnerability assessments of major weapon systems; and a
provision that would require an assessment of capabilities of
United States Cyber Command to defend the United States from
cyber attacks by foreign powers.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee included several directive reporting requirements,
including: a briefing on the impact of the Wassernaar Agreement
to Department of Defense applications; an assessment and report
by the Comptroller General on the Department of Defense's
planning and management for the security impact and challenges
that the Internet of Things will present to the Department; a
briefing assessing the capabilities and needs for
electromagnetic pulse hardening Department of Defense
microgrids; a report by the Comptroller General assessing the
Department's management and measurement of progress in
protecting its own networks, systems, and information; a
briefing on how to implement a pilot to cyber harden existing
programs through sustainment activities in fiscal year 2018; a
briefing on the training equivalency process for the
Department; a briefing assessing the policies and processes for
coordinating information assurance policies on test and
evaluation facilities when conducting joint or multiservice
test and evaluation activities; and a briefing reviewing and
assessing the dual-hat relationship for Cyber Command.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes a provision that would elevate Cyber
Command to a full unified command; a provision that would
expand existing special procurement authority to include uses
for defense against or recovery from a cyber attack; a
provision that would require combatant commands to enter into
agreements relating to the use of cyber opposition forces; a
provision requiring a strategy for incorporating Army National
Guard forces into cyber protection teams; a provision that
would provide additional training for human resources
professionals at Cyber Command; a provision that would
establish an advisory committee on industrial security and
industrial base policy; a provision that would limit the
termination of the dual-hat relationship between the National
Security Agency and Cyber Command; a provision that would allow
the Department to provide cyber support to personnel vulnerable
to cyber attacks; a provision that would expedite evaluation of
the cyber vulnerabilities to the F-35 aircraft and support
systems; a provision that would require evaluation of the cyber
vulnerabilities of defense critical infrastructure; a provision
that would require a report on cyber deterrence capabilities;
and a provision requiring a plan for information security
continuous monitoring capabilities and comply-to-connect
policy.
INFORMATION OPERATIONS
Engagement with foreign audiences and nuanced understanding
of the information environment is pivotal in navigating the
21st century security environment. Whether one is trying to
influence nation-state actors or potential allies, counter
violent extremist groups, or identify and counter efforts at
deception or misinformation, strategic communication and
information operations are key elements to success on the
battlefield. These elements are an important tool to prevent or
deter conflict before escalation. The ability to carry out such
operations against nation-states, as well as individuals and
small terrorist groups, requires a flexible and adaptable
strategy, as well as comprehensive understanding of specific
groups, their motivating ideologies, and the tools to translate
that understanding into action.
With the resurgence of violent extremist groups like Al
Shabaab, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, the need for the Department of Defense to plan and
execute effective information operations is continuing to grow.
Recent examples illustrate how these groups are utilizing
social media to support the radicalization process, as well as
planning, financing, and command and control for terrorist
acts. The committee has paid particular attention to the
Department of Defense's information operations and strategic
communication strategies, and how these tools will be further
developed and adapted to support warfighter needs in a changing
security environment, while maintaining appropriate controls
for privacy and civil liberties. These activities enable
military operations and military support to diplomacy, and the
committee has continued to conduct oversight of these critical
capabilities, with focus on how these tools are integrated into
theater security cooperation plans and leveraged with related
tools for cyber and security force assistance.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities conducted several hearings and briefings within
this area, including: a briefing on September 18, 2015,
``Improving Department of Defense Operations in the Information
Environment: A Roundtable Discussion on Technology and
Concepts''; a hearing on October 22, 2015, ``Countering
Adversarial Propaganda: Charting an Effective Course in the
Contested Information Environment''; and a briefing on December
2, 2015, ``Information Operations Update.''
H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016, as passed by the House, included a provision
that allows the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot
program to assess information-related and strategic
communications capabilities to support the tactical,
operational, and strategic requirements of the various
combatant commanders, including urgent and emergent operational
needs, and the operational and theater security cooperation
plans of the geographic and functional combatant commanders.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) included a provision that requires the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a series of technology
demonstrations, subject to the availability of funds for such
purpose or to a prior approval reprogramming, related to
information operations and information engagement to support
the geographic and functional combatant commanders, with
associated notification requirements.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee included directive reporting requirements that would
require: a briefing on the Department's long-term strategy to
counter adversarial messaging and recruiting utilizing digital
technologies, including social media; a briefing assessing the
current policy directives on how defense entities use such
social media tools; and a strategy for regionally building
partnership capacity that addresses the monitoring, data
collection of narratives, and development of networks for
countering narratives to support the missions of the combatant
commands.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes a provision that would codify and expand
the functions of the Global Engagement Center.
COMPROMISES OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND INSIDER THREATS
The committee received regular updates from the Department
of Defense on unauthorized disclosures of classified
information throughout the 114th Congress. The committee
remains concerned about several recent high-profile cases of
unauthorized classified information disclosures and other
mishandling of classified information by cleared personnel, and
the impact of these incidents on national security. In response
to these continuing issues, the fiscal year 2016 and 2017
National Defense Authorization Acts directed several
enhancements to security policies and practices, improved audit
capabilities, and information-sharing initiatives.
USE OF FORCE IN COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES
The committee continued to conduct extensive oversight,
often in classified form, over the use of force in
counterterrorism operations and sensitive activities outside of
the United States and areas of active hostilities. While the
use of force in this area has been overseen in all aspects, the
committee paid particular attention to special operations
forces and activities, and the interagency coordination that
occurs with the U.S. Intelligence Community. In conducting this
oversight, the committee also reviewed and considered
Presidential policy guidance documents and similar executive
branch directives. The committee ensured that counterterrorism
operations and sensitive activities conducted outside of the
United States and areas of active hostilities are in line with
broader national security objectives, strategies, and
resources. The committee additionally conducted issue-driven
oversight in this area via secure communications and briefings
with senior Department of Defense and Intelligence Community
officials. Throughout the 114th Congress, committee Members and
staff traveled extensively overseas to review programs and
activities outside of the United States and within areas of
active hostilities.
COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is a key
mission for the Department of Defense. The proliferation and
potential use of nuclear, chemical, and biological agents pose
a unique and enduring threat to U.S. national security. To
respond to this threat, the Department is engaged in activities
to understand the environment, threats, and vulnerabilities;
control, defeat, disable, and dispose of WMD threats; and
safeguard the force and manage WMD consequences. The committee
and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
continued reviewing the Department's countering WMD plans and
programs to ensure the WMD threat is appropriately addressed
and is properly resourced despite decreasing budgets and
competing priorities.
The committee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities held several hearings and briefings on countering
WMD, including: a hearing on March 25, 2015, ``Countering WMD
Strategy and FY16 Budget Request: Defense Threat Reduction
Agency and Chemical and Biological Defense''; a briefing on
June 10, 2015, ``An Update on the Inadvertent Transfer of Live
Anthrax Samples by the Department of Defense''; a briefing on
November 4, 2015, ``An Update and Threat Forecast on the
Development and Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by
State and Non-State Actors''; a hearing on February 3, 2016,
``Outside Views on Biodefense for the Department of Defense'';
a hearing on February 10, 2016, ``Department of Defense
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy and Programs for
Fiscal Year 2017.''
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee included several directives related to countering
weapons of mass destruction, including: a briefing on the
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction situational awareness
prototype Constellation; a briefing on the Department of
Defense's biological research and developmental work, to
include partnerships with non-profit research facilities
regarding potential renewed viral threats of especially
dangerous pathogens; a Comptroller General of the United States
review of the preparedness of the Homeland Response Forces to
accomplish their mission; and a Comptroller General review of
the Department of Defense's planning to support civil
authorities in the event of a pandemic disease outbreak.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), included several legislative provisions
related to countering weapons of mass destruction. These
include: a limitation of funds for the advanced development and
manufacturing facility under the medical countermeasure
program; an extension of the authority to conduct activities to
enhance the capability of foreign countries to respond to
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction from section
1204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014 (Public Law 113-66); and a modification to section
1412(b)(3) of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986
(Public Law 99-145) that extends the stockpile elimination
deadline of lethal chemical agents and munitions; and
recommendations on the inadvertent transfer of anthrax from the
Department of Defense.
S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, includes several legislative provisions related to
countering weapons of mass destruction. These include:
requirements for improved biosafety handling and incident
reporting of select agents and toxins to hold the Department of
Defense accountable for some of the findings from the
inadvertent transfer of anthrax; and direction for the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary
of Agriculture to jointly develop and submit a national
biodefense strategy and implementation plan.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Full Committee Hearings and Briefings
During the 114th Congress, the committee held a series of
budget and posture hearings and briefings in preparation for
the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 budgets. These
hearings and briefings, combined with the committee's
responsibility for assembling the annual defense authorization
bill, are a central element in the discharge of the committee's
oversight responsibilities. In upholding its responsibilities
to mitigate waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Federal
Government programs, and pursuant to House rule XI, clauses
2(n), (o), and (p), the committee met several times to conduct
oversight of Department of Defense activities, as noted
elsewhere in this report.
To inform its consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget
request, the committee convened a hearing on February 3, 2015,
with defense intelligence leaders to receive testimony on
worldwide threats. On March 17, 2015, the committee convened a
hearing to receive testimony from the Secretaries of the
military departments and the military service chiefs, and on
March 18, 2015, the committee received testimony from the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff on the Department of Defense fiscal year 2016 budget
request. The committee also sought the perspective of the
commanders of the unified combatant commands and the commander
of Operation Resolute Support through several briefings and
hearings in 2015. Additionally, the committee convened a
hearing to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their
national defense priorities for the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which took place on
April 14, 2015.
To inform its consideration of the fiscal year 2017 budget
request, the committee convened a hearing on March 2, 2016,
with defense intelligence leaders to receive testimony on
worldwide threats. On March 16, 2016, the committee convened a
hearing to received testimony from the Secretaries of the
military departments and the military service chiefs, and on
March 22, 2016, the committee received testimony from the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff on the Department of Defense fiscal year 2017 budget
request. The committee also sought the perspective of the
commanders of the unified combatant commands and the commanders
of Operation Resolute Support and Operation Inherent Resolve
through briefings and hearings in 2016. Additionally, the
committee convened a hearing to receive testimony from Members
of Congress on their national defense priorities for the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which
took place on March 1, 2016.
In keeping with the committee's emphasis on defense reform,
the committee convened a series of hearings and briefings
throughout the 114th Congress to examine: challenges to the
technological superiority of the United States, acquisition
agility, foreign material sales processes, security
cooperation, improvements to the Goldwater-Nichols Department
of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433), and
compensation and healthcare for service members and their
dependents.
Additionally, as events transpired in the Middle East,
specifically relating to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL) and subsequent U.S. military operations
in the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, the
committee met several times over the course of the 114th
Congress to conduct oversight hearings and briefings on the
threat and the Administration's policy and strategy to defeat
ISIL. These included classified briefings on the security
situation and military operations in Iraq and Syria with senior
defense and Intelligence Community officials; hearings on the
strategy and campaign against ISIL with defense officials,
military commanders, and outside experts; and a hearing with
outside experts on the President's proposed authorization for
the use of military force against ISIL. Additionally, the
committee held a series of hearings and briefings on the United
States' ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, ongoing
global counterterrorism operations, as well as a series of
events on Islamic extremism trends and implications for U.S.
policy.
The committee also held frequent classified briefings to
receive intelligence and operational updates on threat
developments across the globe. These briefings informed the
committee's oversight hearings and briefings on the
Department's strategic reassurance and deterrence activities in
Europe and the Asia-Pacific, and on the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action with the Islamic Republic of Iran. They also
informed the committee's legislative initiatives in readiness,
capabilities, and infrastructure to ensure that the U.S. Armed
Forces remain capable of addressing current and emerging
conventional and unconventional threats.
The committee also sought to emphasize and complement the
oversight work of the subcommittees and, throughout the 114th
Congress, conducted oversight series focused on the readiness
challenges of the military services, nuclear deterrence and the
state of the U.S. nuclear enterprise, and the Department's
cyber strategy and cyber operations. The committee also held
classified events with the Intelligence Community to examine
how the intelligence enterprise supports defense acquisition,
conducts defense human intelligence, and is addressing
shortfalls in intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance
capabilities.
Lastly, the committee conducted a hearing on the audit
readiness of the Department of Defense, which remains an area
of high risk as identified by the Comptroller General of the
United States, and convened four briefings with Department of
Defense, Department of State, and Intelligence Community
officials on transfers of detainees from the detention facility
at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Budget Oversight
On February 27, 2015, the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the
budget request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for
fiscal year 2016 to the Committee on the Budget. The
President's fiscal year 2016 budget requested $561.0 billion in
discretionary budget authority for national defense. Of this
total, $534.3 billion was for the Department of Defense, $19.1
billion for the Department of Energy's defense activities, and
$7.6 billion for other defense-related activities. The
President's budget request also included $9.0 billion in
mandatory budget authority. The budget submission did not
comply with the limitations mandated by the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) for funding levels in fiscal year
2016 and across all budgeted fiscal years. In addition to the
base budget request, as required by section 1008 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364), the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2016 included a separate request of $50.9 billion,
presented as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), for war-
related expenditures in support of ongoing military operations
in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, military operations
against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
forward presence in other critical areas, and the resetting of
equipment.
The House anticipated in 2014 that requirements for fiscal
year 2016 would exceed those for fiscal year 2015. In fact, the
House-passed budget resolution increased national defense
spending to $566.0 billion in fiscal year 2016, and returned
funding to pre-sequestration levels in fiscal year 2017 and
out. The House-passed fiscal year 2015 budget resolution
provided $5.0 billion more for fiscal year 2016 than the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request.
The committee discussed that, over the last 3 years, the
level of funding requested for defense has seen significant
decline. In fiscal year 2013, defense spending would decrease
by 17 percent under sequestration when compared with the level
projected for fiscal year 2013 in the Future Years Defense
Program (FYDP) that was submitted in February 2010. Even prior
to sequestration, defense spending had already been reduced by
9 percent from the plan submitted just 2 years earlier.
The committee noted that over the prior 5 years, the level
of funding requested and appropriated for national defense had
declined. Under sequestration, national defense spending would
decrease over 21 percent in fiscal year 2016, when compared
with the level projected for fiscal year 2016 in the outyear
budget documentation included in the first budget request
prepared by the Administration, submitted in February 2010. The
committee continued to be concerned that resources were
insufficient to fulfill the current defense strategy. The
committee noted that although the civilian and military
leadership of the Department of Defense attempted to defend
each successively lower budget request, their previous
testimony directly contradicted the assertion that the fiscal
year 2016 budget request would allow the military to fulfill
the defense strategy at low to moderate risk.
The committee agreed in 2015, with the views of General
Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the
President's fiscal year 2016 budget request was at ``the lower
ragged edge'' of the Department's ability to execute the
National Security Strategy, with moderate risk. At these
funding levels, the degradation of hardware requirements was
stemmed, but the replenishment of years of readiness shortfalls
could not be immediately recovered. As submitted, the
Department admitted that it would not be able to fully fight
and meet the demands of the National Military Strategy until
2023. The threat of sequestration-level funding would continue
to impact national defense. The committee urged the continued
support of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to
ensure adequate funding for national defense in fiscal year
2016 and beyond, preferably at pre-sequestration levels, but at
a minimum level of what was previously voted upon in the fiscal
year 2015 House-passed budget resolution.
The committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in
his views and estimates. Instead, the ranking member was joined
by 24 other Members of the committee in submitting alternative
views and estimates that the fiscal year 2016 budget request
offered the Congress a solid basis for cost-effective planning
and decision-making and supported current and future military
requirements. The alternative views discussed that the Congress
must eliminate sequestration to: dispel uncertainty, empower
economic recovery, and grant the legislative and executive
branches of government the flexibility needed to identify and
implement savings within the budget in a responsible and
deliberate manner. The Congress must then pass a comprehensive,
long-term, deficit-reduction plan to solve the country's fiscal
challenges and to promote national security, economic
stability, and the continued growth and prosperity of the
United States. The ranking member noted that deficit-reduction
goals cannot be effectuated through cuts alone, and that
increased revenues and changes in mandatory spending must be
considered. The Congress must, therefore, establish a
manageable, long-term, discretionary spending plan that
advances national interests on a broad front.
On February 5, 2016, the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services forwarded his views on the resources required for
national defense, as the budget request had not yet been
received by Congress, and a review of committee's legislative
activities for the year. The committee noted that an adequate
national defense required significant additional funding. The
committee also recognized that the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015 (Public Law 114-74) set a level of base funding for fiscal
year 2017, as well as a minimum estimate of OCO funding to meet
additional base requirements and to fund current operations.
These views further stated that, at an absolute minimum, the
agreement that Congress and the President reached must be
enforced and fully funded at the agreed levels.
The committee discussed that Public Law 114-74 provided for
a base funding level in fiscal year 2017 of $551.0 billion for
defense. In addition, the agreement provided for a minimum of
$59.0 billion in adjustments to the defense cap for OCO, for a
total of $610.0 billion for national defense. Since it was
understood during the budget negotiations that $551.0 billion
for base funding was insufficient to meet the military's base
requirements, the agreement further designated funding within
OCO to cover base budget requirements. The level of funding for
base requirements was specific for fiscal year 2016, but
undefined in fiscal year 2017. However, the fiscal year 2016
budget request and fiscal year 2016 House budget resolution
both identified the level of funding necessary to support
fiscal year 2017 base requirements as approximately $574.0
billion. Therefore, the consensus was that the fiscal year 2017
base requirements would be supported through a combination of
base funding and OCO funding. To cover that minimum level of
funding, $23.0 billion of the OCO adjustment would support base
requirements, and an additional amount of OCO would fund
current operations, the precise amount of which would depend on
the world security situation and U.S. deployments. Any
additional unidentified emergent requirements, which are
appropriately funded through OCO, should have been added to the
President's budget submission. As indicated in the section by
section analysis of the legislation, the section referring to
OCO funds ``establishes minimum adjustments to the defense . .
. caps for overseas contingency operations.''
The committee noted that while the budget request had not
yet been received, there was concern about how the
Administration was interpreting the budget agreement. It was
concerned that the Office of Management and Budget would
determine that a combined total of $610.0 billion for base and
OCO in Public Law 114-74 was an upper limit for defense
spending. Therefore, the total request for funds would equal an
estimated $610.0 billion for all national defense requirements,
and that new additional OCO requirements would cannibalize
funding for base requirements. As the Comptroller of the
Department of Defense had publicly stated, that in light of
emerging OCO requirements, there would be ``a $15 billion or so
cut'' in fiscal year 2017 that would result in ``slow-downs in
some modernization programs.'' This was a direct contradiction
to the agreement between the House of Representatives and
Senate that the OCO levels for defense in fiscal year 2017 were
the floor, not the ceiling.
The committee recommended House Republicans insist upon at
least an additional $15.0 to $23.0 billion, depending on how
much of the designated funding in OCO for base requirements was
consumed to address valid emergent threats, to cover the
national defense base requirements in the upcoming budget
resolution and to enforce the executive branch's agreement in
the BBA. The committee also recommended a further discussion of
additional resources for emergent issues based on the
President's underestimation of security risks to the United
States and mismanagement of core national security priorities,
including the military's posture in Afghanistan; its escalating
efforts to counter ISIL; and its efforts to deter Russian
Federation aggression.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
In coordination with the committee, the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted additional
oversight of specific issues related to the global war on
terrorism, to include; special operations capabilities,
counter-terrorism, and counter-proliferation programs and
activities; homeland defense and consequence management
programs; intelligence policy, national intelligence programs,
and Department of Defense elements of the intelligence
community. Further details on these subcommittee activities are
provided elsewhere in this report.
In order to conduct oversight, subcommittee members and
staff made numerous trips to countries impacted by terrorism
and emerging threats, to include areas where U.S. forces are
engaged in combat operations, to further understand the
resources leveraged against terrorism and other emerging
threats, the authorities applied in these efforts, and the
Department of Defense's interaction with its interagency and
international partners. These congressional and staff
delegations were preceded by operational and intelligence
oversight briefings to Members and staff by senior officials
from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and
the Intelligence Community, and represented an important part
of oversight conducted by the subcommittee. Countries visited
include: United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Turkey, the
State of Kuwait, the Islamic Republic of Iraq, the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, the Federal Republic of Somalia, the
Republic of Kenya, the Republic of Djibouti, the Republic of
Niger, the Kingdom of Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic
of Algeria, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic
of Korea.
The subcommittee considered and reported several
legislative provisions in H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, as passed by the House,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92), H.R. 4909, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, as passed by the House,
and S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017. The legislative provisions covered a range of issues
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction including: counter-
terrorism and counter-proliferation programs and activities;
U.S. Special Operations Forces; science and technology policy
and programs, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency; information technology and programs; homeland defense
and consequence management programs; and defense intelligence
policy. These specifically included: an execute agent for the
oversight and management of alternative compensatory control
measures; congressional notification and briefing requirements
on ordered evacuations of U.S. embassies and consulates
involving the use of United States Armed Forces; and provisions
previously addressed elsewhere in this report.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
included several legislative provisions related to the global
war on terrorism in H.R. 1735, as passed by the House, and
Public Law 114-92 including: a section that would make
permanent the authority for the Secretary of Defense to offer
and make rewards to a person providing information or nonlethal
assistance to U.S. Government personnel or government personnel
of allied forces participating in a combined operation with
U.S. Armed Forces conducted outside the United States against
international terrorism or providing such information or
assistance that is beneficial to force protection associated
with such an operation; a section that would increase from $75
million to $85 million the authority for support of special
operations to combat terrorism pursuant to section 1208 of the
Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375); and a section that would extend
by 1 year, the authority for non-conventional assisted recovery
capabilities for conventional and special operations forces
pursuant to subsection (h) of section 943 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417), as amended most recently by section 1203(c) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81); and an extension of authority to conduct
family support programs for immediate family members of members
of the Armed Forces assigned to U.S. Special Operations Forces.
Additionally, the subcommittee assisted the committee with
several provisions in Public Law 114-92, and S. 2943 related to
weapons of mass destruction, building partnership capacity,
security force assistance, counterinsurgency, defense
intelligence, and the regional conflicts in Afghanistan, Syrian
Arab Republic, State of Libya, and East Africa, which are
addressed elsewhere in this report.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel continued oversight
of military personnel issues including; military service end-
strength, compensation and benefits, commissaries, morale
welfare and recreation programs, military medical care, the
Uniformed Code of Military Justice and other issues that
impacted military personnel in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year
2017. The subcommittee conducted numerous oversight hearings
and briefings with the Department of Defense and outside
organizations and individuals as detailed below as well as
multiple oversight trips to bases and countries when military
personnel are stationed.
On February 4, 2015, the subcommittee received the initial
report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel.
On February 11, 2015 the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the final recommendations from the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
On March 17, 2015, the subcommittee met for a closed Member
Roundtable on the retirement and quality of life
recommendations from the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission to focus on military retirement
reform.
On March 19, 2015, the subcommittee met for a roundtable on
the health care recommendations from the Military Compensation
and Retirement Modernization Commission.
On March 25, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the stakeholder's views on the recommendations of
the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
Commission.
On June 11, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the
Department of Defense views on the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations for
military health care reform.
On June 24, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive a closed
briefing on the implementation of the recommendations of the
reviews following the sexual assault incidents at Lackland Air
Force Base and to receive an update on the Air Force Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Program.
On September 17, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive the
recommendations and the results of the military resale study
conducted by the Boston Consulting Group.
On October 23, 2015, the subcommittee met for a roundtable
briefing on the Department of Defense views on military resale
reform.
On November 4, 2015, the subcommittee met for a closed
briefing on Health Insurance/ TRICARE 101.
On November 18, 2015, the subcommittee met for a briefing
from former military Surgeons General on military health care
reform.
On December 9, 2015, the subcommittee met to hear testimony
from the stakeholders on the Survivor Benefit Plan, Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation financial offset.
On January 13, 2016 the subcommittee met to hear testimony
from the Department of Defense on the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission's recommendations on
military resale reform.
On February 3, 2016, the subcommittee met to hear testimony
on the mission and benefits of military treatment facilities.
On February 24, 2016, the subcommittee met to hear
testimony on the Defense Health Agency's budgeting and
structure.
On March 3, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
roundtable briefing on military personnel posture for fiscal
year 2017.
On March 17, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
roundtable briefing on stakeholder views on the Department of
Defense's FY17 modernization of the TRICARE health plan
proposal.
On June 10, 2016, the subcommittee received a briefing from
the Director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program for the
Department of Defense (DOD) on the initiatives undertaken to
ensure effectiveness and compliance of the Service's Voting
Assistance Programs. The briefing included the current status
of voting assistance programs and their efficacy; initiatives
to improve tracking of military and overseas absentee ballots;
and actions taken in response to the findings of the March 2016
DOD Inspector General Report.
On June 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
roundtable briefing regarding an update on the Department of
Defense and military services' suicide prevention program.
On June 22, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
roundtable briefing from DOD witnesses regarding a report on
the rights of conscience protections for service members and
their chaplains.
On September 8, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on H.R. 4298: Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act
and H.R. 5458: Veterans TRICARE Choice Act.
On September 13, 2016, the subcommittee continued its
oversight efforts and met to receive a roundtable briefing on
an update on commissary reform from the Department of Defense.
On December 7, 2016, the subcommittee met to hear testimony
from the National Guard and Department of Defense on the
California National Guard bonus repayment issue.
Subcommittee on Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of
military readiness, training, logistics, and maintenance
issues; military construction, installations, and family
housing issues; energy policy and programs of the Department of
Defense; and civilian personnel and service contracting issues.
On February 3, 2015, the committee received a briefing on
``Worldwide Readiness Update.'' The briefing provided an update
to members on the current state of readiness across the
military departments and the functional and geographic
combatant commands (COCOM) with a specific focus on current
shortfalls and gaps. The briefing also highlighted some of the
most resource-intensive operations plans and the military
departments' capacity to provide sufficient ready forces to
meet COCOM requirements.
On March 3, 2015, the committee received testimony on
``Alignment of Infrastructure Investment and Risk and Defense
Strategic Requirements.'' This hearing explored the fiscal year
2016 military construction, family housing, base realignment
and closure, and facilities operations and maintenance budget
request; specifically, to what extent the risks in
infrastructure investment have been calculated, what has been
the impact of reduced investment, is the new base realignment
and closure request appropriate in the near term, and does the
infrastructure investment strategy align with the National
Security Strategy and Defense Strategic Guidance?
On March 26, 2015, the committee received testimony on
``The Department of Defense's Readiness Posture.'' The four
military vice chiefs of staff provided testimony on each of the
military services' fiscal year 2016 budget requests,
priorities, and key readiness-related issues. The hearing
allowed Members to learn more about specific investments and
projected spending on operations, training, exercises, flight
hour programs, weapons system, sustainment, reset and
retrograde, and depot maintenance. It also provided Members an
opportunity to learn about operation and maintenance funding
investments required to sustain platforms outside the military
services' planned budgets (such as the A-10), and what
readiness investments are most at risk under sequestration or
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) spending levels.
On April 15, 2015, the committee met to receive a
roundtable briefing on U.S. Transportation Command.
On June 12, 2015, the committee met to receive a classified
briefing on ``Army Force Generation: requirements and
challenges.''
On July 30, 2015, the committee met to receive a classified
hearing on ``Status of European Command Training and Readiness
Initiatives.''
On September 10, 2015, the committee met to receive
testimony on the Navy's ``Optimized Fleet Response Plan.''
On September 18, 2015, the committee met to receive a
classified briefing on the ``State of Air Force Readiness.''
On October 1, 2015, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Public Shipyards' Role in Meeting Operational
Requirements.''
On October 23, 2015, the committee met with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive a
classified briefing on the ``South China Sea--Current
Operations and Future Requirements for Naval Forces.''
On November 3, 2015, the committee met with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive
testimony on ``Aircraft Carrier--Presence and Surge Limitations
and Expanding Power Projection Options.''
On December 3, 2015, the committee received testimony on
``Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support
Investments on Readiness.''
On January 8, 2016, the subcommittee received testimony on
``Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support
Investments on Navy Readiness.''
On January 13, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base
Operating Support Investments on Air Force Readiness.''
On February 11, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on ``Regionally Aligned Forces-AFRICOM.''
On February 12, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Department of the Air Force 2017 Operation and
Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture.''
On February 26, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Department of the Army 2017 Operation and
Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture.''
On March 3, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``The Marine Corps 2017 Operation and Maintenance Budget
Request and Readiness Posture.''
On March 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``The U.S. Transportation Command Fiscal Year 2017
Readiness Posture.''
On March 17, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``The Department of the Navy 2017 Operations and
Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness Posture.''
On April 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on the ``Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress.''
On May 23, 2016, the subcommittee sent a congressional
delegation to the USS Eisenhower (CVN 69) jointly with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive a
briefing on ``The Fleet of the Future: Building the 21st
Century Navy.''
On May 26, 2016, the subcommittee met jointly with the
subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces to receive
testimony on ``Navy Force Structure Readiness: Perspectives
from the Fleet.''
On June 10, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on ``Update on DOD Civilian Personnel Initiatives.''
On July 6, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Aviation Readiness.''
On September 15, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on ``Arctic Readiness.''
On December 1, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Army Reserve and Army National Guard
Readiness.''
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
The subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in
the budget requests for fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017.
In addition, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings
on the following topics: Air Force Projection Forces Aviation
Programs and Capabilities for Fiscal Year 2016; a joint hearing
with the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure on the Naval Cooperative Strategy; Role of
Surface Forces in Presence, Deterrence, and Warfighting;
Capacity of U.S. Navy to Project Power with Large Surface
Combatants; a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness
on Aircraft Carrier--Presence and Surge Limitations and
Expanding Power Projection Options; Acquisition Efficiency and
the Future Navy Force; Game Changing Innovations and the Future
Surface Warfare; Game Changing and Innovations and the Future
of Surface Warfare; Carrier Air Wing and the Future of Naval
Aviation; Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs and
Capabilities for Fiscal Year 2017; Logistics and Sealift Force
Requirements; Building the Navy of the Future: A Look at Navy
Force Structure; a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Readiness on the Fleet of the Future: Building the 21st
Century; a joint hearing with the subcommittee on Readiness on
Navy Force Structure Readiness: Perspectives from the Fleet; a
joint hearing with the Committee on Foreign Affairs
subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on South China Sea
Maritime Disputes; Naval Dominance in Undersea Warfare; Next
Generation Air Space Control-Ensuring Air Force Compliance by
January 1, 2020; and Seapower and Projection Forces in the
South China Sea.
In addition to hearings, the subcommittee conducted
numerous briefings on the following topics: Small Surface
Combatant Task Force; Long Range Strike Bomber; Shipbuilding
Overview and Industrial Base Implications; SSN/SSBN Security
Technology Program; Navy Force Structure Assessment, Deployment
Gaps, and Presence Trends; Mine Countermeasures Capabilities
and Challenges; South China Sea--Current Operations and Future
Requirements for Naval Forces; and Navy Surface Warfare--
Distributed Lethality; Navy Surface Warfare and Distributed
Lethality Concepts; Navy Threats and Capabilities; B-21 Cost;
and Worldwide Submarine Operations.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held five hearings
regarding the President's fiscal year 2016 budget request. On
February 26, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the
``Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for Strategic Forces.'' On
March 19, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal
Year 2016 Budget Request for Missile Defense.'' On March 24,
2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense.'' On March 25, 2016,
the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for National Security Space.'' On April 15,
2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for Nuclear Forces.''
In addition to oversight of the President's fiscal year
2016 budget request, the subcommittee held several oversight
hearings during the first session of the 114th Congress. On
September 10, 2015, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``The
Obama Administration's Deal with Iran: Implications for Missile
Defense and Nonproliferation.'' On December 1, 2015, the
subcommittee held a hearing on ``Russian Arms Control Cheating:
Violation of the INF Treaty and the Administration's Responses
One Year Later,'' to review and assess the Administration's
responses to the Russian Federation's violation of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. On December 8, 2015,
the subcommittee held a hearing on ``Prompt Global Strike:
American and Foreign Developments.''
The subcommittee also held numerous briefings during the
first session of the 114th Congress. On October 1, 2015, the
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on the
missile defeat enterprise and left-of-launch. On October 22,
2015, the subcommittee met with the Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces to receive a classified briefing on ICBM
field security and implementation of the Nuclear Enterprise
Review recommendations. On November 17, 2015, the subcommittee
met to receive a classified briefing on overview and status of
the nuclear command, control, and communications system.
The subcommittee held five hearings regarding the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget request. On February 11,
2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2017
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities.'' On
February 24, 2016, the subcommittee held a hearing on ``U.S.
Strategic Forces Posture.'' On March 2, 2016, the subcommittee
held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for
Department of Defense Nuclear Forces.'' On March 15, 2016, the
subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Fiscal Year 2017 Budget
Request for National Security Space.'' On April 14, 2016, the
subcommittee held a hearing on the ``Missile Defeat Posture and
Strategy of the United States--the Fiscal Year 2017 President's
Budget Request.''
Furthermore, during the second the session of the 114th
Congress, the subcommittee held several briefings. On January
7, 2016, the subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing
on WMD threats and space threats. On February 2, 2016, the
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on
proliferation threats from 3-D printing. On March 22, 2016, the
subcommittee met to receive a classified briefing on the Fiscal
Year 2017 Budget Request for Cooperative Threat Reduction plans
and programs.
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided
oversight of all Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
Air Force, and Office of the Secretary of Defense acquisition
programs providing tactical aircraft and missiles; armor and
ground vehicles; munitions; rotorcraft; individual equipment to
include tactical networks and radios; counter improvised
explosive device equipment; intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance platforms to include unmanned aerial systems,
and associated support equipment, including National Guard and
Reserve equipment programs. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces also provided oversight on policy, such as
threats and force structure requirements, as appropriate within
the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This includes current or
future acquisition programs that relate to gaps in the
capabilities required to execute current national military
strategies, as well as the allocation of acquisition resources.
This would also include military service specific acquisition
policies as long as there is a nexus to the subcommittee's
jurisdiction. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
focused on maintaining Air Dominance and Air Superiority, as
well as policies ensuring effective use of land forces as a
strategic deterrent.
The subcommittee conducted four oversight hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2016 budget request,
including the following: March 19, 2015: ``Army and Marine
Corps Ground Force and Rotorcraft Modernization Programs and
the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request''; March 26, 2015: ``Fiscal
Year 2016 Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Combat Aviation
Programs''; April 14, 2015: ``The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Program for Fiscal Year 2016''; October 21, 2015: ``Update of
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program for Fiscal Year 2016.''
The subcommittee conducted four oversight hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2017 budget request,
including the following: March 2, 2016: ``Ground Force
Modernization Budget''; March 16, 2016: ``Fiscal Year 2017 Army
and Air Force Rotorcraft Modernization Programs''; March 23,
2016: ``Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program
and the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request.''
In addition to oversight hearings, the subcommittee held
various briefings and events to conduct oversight including
classified briefings: February 12, 2015: ``Close Air Support'';
February 26, 2015: ``Threats to Air Dominance and U.S. 5th
Generation Capability''; June 18, 2015: ``Threats to U.S.
Rotorcraft''; September 9, 2015: ``Issues and Challenges Facing
NATO's Allied Land Command''; September 29, 2015: ``Update on
the Global IED Threat''; October 27, 2015: ``The Challenges
Facing U.S. Ground Forces Rotorcraft''; December 10, 2015:
``Future of Land Warfare''; February 4, 2016: ``Hearing on the
Issues and Concerns Regarding Naval Strike Fighters''; February
10, 2016: ``Hearing on the Recommendations from the National
Commission on the Future of the Army''; February 26, 2016:
``Russian Air Defense Systems and Russian Ground Systems'';
June 8, 2016: ``The Marine Corps Ground Combat Tactical Vehicle
Strategy and Addressing Readiness Challenges''; June 18, 2016:
``Field Hearing on Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth
Generation Fighter Aircraft''; July 13, 2016: ``Hearing on Air
Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth Generation Fighters.''
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on
April 23, 2015, and on Wednesday April 29, 2015, that was
ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The legislation
covered a range of issues, including authorization of
appropriations for procurement programs and research,
development, test, and evaluation programs for the Department
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Reserve Components.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on
Wednesday, April 20, 2016, and on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, that
was ultimately included in S. 2943, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducts
comprehensive, in-depth oversight investigations, holds
hearings, briefings, and other activities, and makes
recommendations to the committee for consideration and
potential legislative action.
Inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 Transfer to Qatar of
Five Law-of-war Detainees
As described elsewhere in this report, in December 2015,
the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations and the committee chairman issued a 104-page
report on the inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014
transfer to the State of Qatar of five law-of-war detainees in
connection with the recovery of a captive U.S. Army sergeant.
The report included dissenting views of the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and the
committee ranking member. The report addressed the rationale
for the transfer from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(GTMO), the process by which the transfer decision was made,
the national security implications of the transfer, and related
topics.
This work was the continuation of activities directed to be
undertaken in 2014 by the previous committee chairman. In the
course of this investigation, subcommittee staff conducted
transcribed interviews of 16 witnesses, including the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense, Commander, U.S. Southern
Command, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, the
individual who was ``performing the duties of'' the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy in the absence of a confirmed
nominee at the time of the transfer, the Department's Special
Envoy for the Closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility,
the Department's Deputy Special Envoy, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central
Asia, the Director of the Joint Staff's Pakistan-Afghanistan
Coordination Cell, the Commander, Joint Task Force-GTMO, two
individuals who believed they had knowledge relevant to the
inquiry, and others. The subcommittee staff also reviewed over
4,000 pages of classified and unclassified documents produced
by the Department of Defense, hours of video, and conducted a
staff oversight trip to Qatar, and facilitated two
congressional delegations to GTMO.
Oversight of the Nuclear Enterprise
On June 25, 2015, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Update on
Findings and Recommendations of the 2014 Department of Defense
Nuclear Enterprise Review.'' Witnesses were: Dr. Yisroel
Brumer, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Office of the
Secretary of Defense; Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, Director of
Strategic Systems Programs, U.S. Navy; Major General Jack
Weinstein, Commander of the 20th Numbered Air Force, U.S. Air
Force; and Major General Richard Clark, Commander of the 8th
Numbered Air Force, U.S. Air Force.
The Department of Defense's Assured Access to Micro-electronics
On October 28, 2015, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations convened a hearing to consider the Department of
Defense's acquisition and application of microelectronic
components, and to assess the potential risks posed by unsecure
or inauthentic parts. The hearing also discussed activities
that the Department is undertaking to mitigate any challenges
posed by the microelectronics supply and manufacturing process.
Witnesses were: Ms. Kristen Baldwin, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering, Office of the
Secretary of Defense; Mr. Andre Gudger, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Acting) for Manufacturing and Industrial
Base Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense; Mr. Brett
Hamilton, Division Chief Engineer for Trusted Microelectronics,
Naval Surface Warfare Center--Crane, Indiana, U.S. Navy; and
Ms. Marie Mak, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management
Team, Government Accountability Office.
Oversight of the Guantanamo Detainee Transfer Process
As described elsewhere in this report, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held hearings and briefings to
receive information on the process by which the Administration
transfers law-of-war detainees from U.S. Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to other countries and the activities of
detainees after their transfer.
Afghanistan Oversight
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened
two hearings in connection with its continued oversight efforts
of U.S. efforts in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. On
February 12, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Assessing the
Development of Afghanistan National Security Forces.'' This
hearing focused on the evolving security situation in
Afghanistan and the policy, strategy, and posture required to
develop, support and sustain the Government of Afghanistan. The
subcommittee was brought up to date on the Department of
Defense's efforts to train, advise, and assist Afghanistan's
security forces. Witnesses were: Mr. Kent Breedlove, Senior
Defense Analyst--Afghanistan, Defense Intelligence Agency; Ms.
Christine Abizaid, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, Office of the
Secretary of Defense; Colonel Stephen L. A. Michael, U.S. Army,
Deputy Director for Pakistan Afghanistan and Transregional
Threats Coordination Cell, Office of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; the Hon. John Sopko, Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction; and Mr. Michael Child, Deputy
Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations,
Department of Defense.
Subsequently, the subcommittee convened a hearing entitled,
``Evaluating DOD Investments: Case Studies in Afghanistan
Initiatives and US Weapons Sustainment'' on April 13, 2016. The
subcommittee received testimony regarding the Department's
decision-making, oversight, and execution of the following
projects and programs of the Task Force for Business Stability
Operations, and of the Defense Logistics Agency: the Afghan
Compressed Natural Gas Infrastructure project; the TFBSO
Housing Accommodations and Security requirements; the Rare
Blonde Italian Cashmere Goat Textile production project; and,
the Defense Logistics Agency's aviation parts quality assurance
program. Witnesses included the Honorable John Sopko, Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; Ms.
Jacqueline L. Wicecarver, Deputy Inspector General for Auditing
(Acting), Department of Defense; and Mr. Charlie Lilli, Deputy
Director of Aviation and Head of Aviation Contracting Activity,
Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency.
Oversight of Foreign Military Sales
In 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
convened a series of briefings and hearings to evaluate the
U.S. Foreign Military Sales program. On April 20, 2016, the
subcommittee held a briefing with Mr. Paul Kerr, Analyst,
Congressional Research Service; the Honorable William G. P.
Monahan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security and
Security Assistance, Department of State; and Vice Admiral
Joseph W. Rixey, Director of the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency.
On May 11, 2016, the subcommittee convened a hearing
entitled ``U.S. Perspectives on the Department of Defense's
Policies, Roles, and Responsibilities for Foreign Military
Sales'' in order to receive the defense industrial base's input
on how to improve the execution of Foreign Military Sales.
Witnesses were: Mr. Tom Davis, Senior Fellow at the National
Defense Industrial Association; and Mr. Remy Nathan, Vice
President for International Affairs from the Aerospace
Industries Association.
On May 17, 2016, the subcommittee convened a hearing
entitled, ``Assessing the Department of Defense's Execution of
Responsibilities in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales Program.''
The objective of this hearing was to further familiarize
Members with the Foreign Military Sales process and how it is
managed by the Department. Witnesses were: Vice Admiral Joseph
Rixey, U.S. Navy, Director, Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, Department of Defense; Ms. Claire Grady, Director,
Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and Ms.
Beth McCormick, Director, Defense Technology and Security
Administration, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
Oversight of the Department of Defense Human Intelligence Capabilities
On July 12, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities convened a joint classified briefing entitled,
``Department of Defense Human Intelligence Capabilities--The
Defense Clandestine Service: Organizational History and
Proposed Changes.'' This briefing focused on the creation of
the Defense Clandestine Service and provided an overview of the
Defense Clandestine Service's operations, as well as internal
and external oversight.
Oversight of the European Reassurance Initiative
On July 13, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the
European Reassurance Initiative.'' Members received testimony
about how the Department of Defense has been implementing the
European Reassurance Initiative since Fiscal Year 2015, and how
the Department plans to execute the initiative through fiscal
year 2017. During this hearing, the witnesses described the
opportunities and challenges the Department faces in
implementing the European Reassurance Initiative in the current
security environment and budgetary constraints. Witnesses were:
Major General David Allvin, U.S. Air Force, J-5, U.S. European
Command; Ms. Rachel Ellehuus, Principal Director, Europe and
NATO Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense; and Mr. Tom
Tyra, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army.
Implications of Force Management Levels in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations convened a
briefing and hearing series to assess the issues related to
Force Management Levels (also known as ``troop caps''),
including financial and readiness considerations, and
considerations regarding sovereignty and host nation
acceptance. This briefing and hearing series also considered
how Force Management Levels fit within broader warfighting
strategies. The briefing was held on November 15, 2016, and the
hearing was held on December 1, 2016. Both were entitled,
``Force Management Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan; Readiness
and Strategic Considerations.'' Witnesses at the hearing were:
Mr. Cary B. Russell, Director, Military Operations and
Warfighter Support, Government Accountability Office; General
Carter Ham, U.S. Army, Retired; and Lieutenant General James
Dubik, U.S. Army, Retired.
Oversight of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship Program
On December 8, 2016, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations convened a hearing entitled, ``Oversight Review
of the U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program.'' The
subcommittee received testimony on the Navy's current
requirements for a small surface combatant capability and
explored the current acquisition, sustainment, and personnel
strategies. The subcommittee also received testimony regarding
current LCS testing and evaluation, and received assessments of
the Navy's acquisition, sustainment, and personnel strategies.
Witnesses were: the Honorable Sean Stackley, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
Acquisition, Department of the Navy; Vice Admiral Thomas
Rowden, U.S. Navy Commander, Naval Surface Forces; Dr. J.
Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
Department of Defense; Ms. Michele Mackin, Director,
Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability
Office; and Mr. Ron O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs,
Congressional Research Office.
PUBLICATIONS
House Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Number Date Filed Bill Number Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
114-102.......... May 5, 2015.......... H.R. 1735.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2016.
114-102 Part 2... May 12, 2015......... H.R. 1735.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2016.
114-537.......... May 4, 2016.......... H.R. 4909.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2017.
114-537 Part 2... May 12, 2016......... H.R. 4909.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Prints
Committee Print No. 1--Rules of the Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives of the United States, 114th
Congress 2015-2016, adopted January 14, 2015.
Committee Print No. 2--National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016. Legislative Text and Joint Explanatory
Statement to accompany S. 1356 (Public Law 114-92). November
2015.
Published Proceedings
H.A.S.C. 114-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee
Organization. Jan. 14, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-2--Full Committee hearing on A Case for
Reform: Improving DOD's Ability to Respond to the Pace of
Technological Change. Jan. 28, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-3--Full Committee hearing on Worldwide
Threats. Feb. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Wounded Warrior Program Update. Feb. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-5--Full Committee hearing on Final
Recommendations from the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission. Feb. 4, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-6--Full Committee hearing on The Fiscal Year
2016 Budget Request: A View from Outside Experts: Alternative
Budgets and Strategic Choices. Feb. 11, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-7--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Final Recommendations from the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission. Feb. 11, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-8--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Update on Detainee Transfers from
Guantanamo. Feb. 12, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-9--Full Committee hearing on What is the State
of Islamic Extremism: Key Trends, Challenges, and Implications
for U.S. Policy. Feb. 13, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-10--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--How is DOD Responding to
Emerging Security Challenges in Europe? Feb. 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-11--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for
Seapower and Projection Forces. Feb. 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-12--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Information Technology Investments and Programs:
Supporting Current Operations and Planning for the Future
Threat Environment. Feb. 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-13--Full Committee hearing on Outside
Perspectives on the President's Proposed Authorization for the
Use of Military Force Against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant. Feb. 26, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-14--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for Strategic Forces. Feb. 26, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-15--Full Committee hearing on The President's
Proposed Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIL
and U.S. Policy, Strategy, and Posture in the Greater Middle
East. Mar. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-16--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Alignment of
Infrastructure Investment and Risk and Defense Strategic
Requirements. Mar. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-17--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--U.S. Policy, Strategy, and
Posture in Afghanistan: Post-2014 Transition, Risks, and
Lessons Learned. Mar. 4, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-18--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Air
Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs and Capabilities for
Fiscal Year 2016. Mar. 4, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-19--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Cyber Operations: Improving the
Military Cybersecurity Posture in an Uncertain Threat
Environment. Mar. 4, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-20--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Fiscal Year 2016 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Military
Departments. Mar. 17, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-21--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Assuring Assured Access to Space. Mar. 17, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-22--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The President's Proposed
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against ISIL and
the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request from the Department of Defense. Mar. 18, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-23--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Naval Cooperative Strategy (joint with
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure). Mar. 18, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-24--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Special Operations Forces in an Uncertain Threat
Environment: A Review of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request
for U.S. Special Operations Command. Mar. 18, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-25--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile
Defense Programs. Mar. 19, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-26--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2016 Ground Force Modernization and Rotorcraft
Modernization Programs. Mar. 19, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-27--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense. Mar. 24, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-28--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Stakeholder's Views on the Recommendations of the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. Mar. 25,
2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-29--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategy and
the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical
Biological Defense Program. Mar. 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-30--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for National Security Space. Mar. 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-31--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Department of
Defense's Readiness Posture. Mar. 26, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-32--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Combat Aviation Modernization Programs and the Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request. Mar. 26, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-33--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Science and
Technology Programs: Laying the Groundwork to Maintain
Technological Superiority. Mar. 26, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-34--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Member Day--National Defense
Priorities from Members for the Fiscal Year 2016 National
Defense Authorization Act. Apr. 14, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-35--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program and the Fiscal
Year 2016 Budget Request. Apr. 14, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-36--Full Committee hearing on The Risk of
Losing Military Technology Superiority and Its Implications for
U.S. Policy, Strategy, and Posture in the Asia-Pacific. Apr.
15, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-37--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on The Role of Surface Forces in Presence,
Deterrence, and Warfighting. Apr. 15, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-38--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2016
Budget Request for Nuclear Forces. Apr. 15, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-39--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on The Department of Defense Views on the Military Compensation
and Retirement Modernization Commission's Recommendations for
Military Health Care Reform. June 11, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-40--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Policy and
Strategy in the Middle East. June 17, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-41--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Capacity of U.S. Navy to Project Power with
Large Surface Combatants. June 17, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-42--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on The Counterterrorism Strategy Against
the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Are We on the Right
Path? June 24, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-43--Full Committee hearing on Nuclear
Deterrence in the 21st Century. June 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-44--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Update on Findings and
Recommendations of the 2014 Department of Defense Nuclear
Enterprise Review. June 25, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-45--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Assuring National Security Space: Investing in American
Industry to End Reliance on Russian Rocket Engines. June 26,
2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-46--Full Committee hearing on Potential
Implications in the Region of the Iran Deal. July 29, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-47--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on The Future of Air Force Long-Range Strike--
Capabilities and Employment Concepts. Sept. 9, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-48--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Optimized Fleet Response Plan. Sept. 10, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-49--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on The Obama Administration's Deal with Iran: Implications for
Missile Defense and Nonproliferation. Sept. 10, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-50--Full Committee hearing on Outside
Perspectives on the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. Sept.
29, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-51--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on USAF Bomber Force Structure--Current
Requirements and Future Vision. Sept. 29, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-52--Full Committee hearing on Implementing the
Department of Defense Cyber Strategy. Sept. 30, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-53--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Public Shipyards' Role in Meeting Operational Requirements.
Oct. 1, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-54--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Plutonium Disposition and the MOX Project. Oct. 7, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-55--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Strategy in
Afghanistan. Oct. 8, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-56--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Update on Military Suicide Prevention Programs. Oct. 8,
2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-57--Full Committee hearing on Examining
Department of Defense Security Cooperation: When It Works and
When It Doesn't. Oct. 21, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-58--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Program. Oct. 21, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-59--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Countering Adversarial Propaganda:
Charting An Effective Course in the Contested Information
Environment. Oct. 22, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-60--Full Committee hearing on Shortening the
Defense Acquisition Cycle. Oct. 27, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-61--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Game Changers--Undersea Warfare. Oct. 27,
2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-62--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Transition Assistance Program--A Unity of Effort. Oct. 28,
2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-63--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Assessing DOD's Assured Access to
Microelectronics in Support of U.S. National Security
Requirements. Oct. 28, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-64--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection
Forces and Readiness joint hearing on Aircraft Carrier--
Presence and Surge Limitations and Expanding Power Projection
Options. Nov. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-65--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Future Options for the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent--Views from
Project Atom. Nov. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-66--Full Committee hearing on Outside Views on
the Strategy for Iraq and Syria. Nov. 18, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-67--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Advancing the Science and Acceptance of
Autonomy for Future Defense Systems. Nov. 19, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-68--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Strategy
for Syria and Iraq and Its Implications for the Region. Dec. 1,
2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-69--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Acquisition Efficiency and the Future Navy
Force. Dec. 1, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-70--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Russian Arms Control Cheating: Violation of the INF Treaty
and the Administration's Responses One Year Later (joint with
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs). Dec. 1, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-71--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support
Investments on Army and Marine Corps Readiness. Dec. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-72--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Stakeholder Views on Military Health Care. Dec. 3, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-73--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Prompt Global Strike: American and Foreign Developments.
Dec. 8, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-74--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Concurrent Receipt of Survivor Benefit Plan and Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation. Dec. 9, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-75--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Game Changing Innovations and the Future of
Surface Warfare. Dec. 9, 2015.
H.A.S.C. 114-76--Full Committee hearing on Acquisition
Reform: Experimentation and Agility. Jan. 7, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-77--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support
Investments on Navy Readiness. Jan. 8, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-78--Full Committee hearing on Outside Views on
the U.S. Strategy for Iraq and Syria and the Evolution of
Islamic Extremism. Jan. 12, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-79--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Academies Study on Peer Review and Design
Competition in the NNSA National Security Laboratories. Jan.
12, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-80--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Effects of Reduced Infrastructure and Base Operating Support
Investments on Air Force Readiness. Jan. 13, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-81--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Views on Commissary Reform. Jan. 13, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-82--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan in
2016: The Evolving Security Situation and U.S. Policy,
Strategy, and Posture. Feb. 2, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-83--Full Committee hearing on Acquisition
Reform: Starting Programs Well. Feb. 3, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-84--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Military Treatment Facilities. Feb. 3, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-85--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Outside Views on Biodefense for the
Department of Defense. Feb. 3, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-86--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Naval Strike Fighters: Issues and Concerns.
Feb. 4, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-87--Full Committee hearing on Understanding
and Deterring Russia: U.S. Policies and Strategies. Feb. 10,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-88--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Recommendations from the National Commission
on the Future of the Army. Feb. 10, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-89--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Department of Defense Countering Weapons of Mass
Destruction Policy and Programs for Fiscal Year 2017. Feb. 10,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-90--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2017
Budget Request for Atomic Energy Defense Activities. Feb. 11,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-91--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Carrier Air Wing and the Future of Naval
Aviation. Feb. 11, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-92--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Department of the
Air Force 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and
Readiness Posture. Feb. 12, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-93--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Assessing the Development of
Afghanistan National Security Forces. Feb. 12, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-94--Full Committee hearing on The Challenge of
Conventional and Hybrid Warfare in the Asia Pacific Region: The
Changing Nature of the Security Environment and Its Effect on
Military Planning. Feb. 24, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-95--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2017 Science and
Technology Programs: Defense Innovation to Create the Future
Military Force. Feb. 24, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-96--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--U.S. Strategic
Forces Posture. Feb. 24, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-97--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Defense Health Agency: Budgeting and Structure. Feb. 24,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-98--Full Committee hearing on Full Spectrum
Challenges in Europe and Their Effects on Deterrence and
Defense. Feb. 25, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-99--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Department of the Navy 2017 Budget Request and Seapower and
Projection Forces. Feb. 25, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-100--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Department of the
Army 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and
Readiness Posture. Feb. 26, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-101--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Ensuring Medical Readiness in the Future. Feb. 26,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-102--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Member Day--National Defense
Priorities from Members for the FY 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act. Mar. 1, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-103--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Air
Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs and Capabilities for
Fiscal Year 2017. Mar. 1, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-104--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Special Operations Forces in an Evolving Threat
Environment: A Review of the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request
for U.S. Special Operations Command. Mar. 1, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-105--Full Committee hearing on World Wide
Threats. Mar. 2, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-106--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Ground Force Modernization Budget Request. Mar. 2, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-107--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2017
Budget Request for Department of Defense Nuclear Forces. Mar.
2, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-108--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Marine Corps
2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and Readiness
Posture. Mar. 3, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-109--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The U.S.
Transportation Command Fiscal Year 2017 Readiness Posture. Mar.
15, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-110--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Fiscal Year 2017
Budget Request for National Security Space. Mar. 15, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-111--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Fiscal Year 2017 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Military
Departments. Mar. 16, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-112--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for U.S. Cyber
Command: Preparing for Operations in the Cyber Domain. Mar. 16,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-113--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Fiscal Year 2017 Army and Air Force Rotorcraft Modernization
Programs. Mar. 16, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-114--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Department of
the Navy 2017 Operations and Maintenance Budget Request and
Readiness Posture. Mar. 17, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-115--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--The Fiscal Year 2017 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of
Defense. Mar. 22, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-116--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Logistics and Sealift Force Requirements.
Mar. 22, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-117--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Fiscal Year 2017 Information Technology and Cyber
Programs: Foundations for a Secure Warfighting Network. Mar.
22, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-118--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Update on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program and the
Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request. Mar. 23, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-119--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Building the Navy of the Future: A Look at
Navy Force Structure. Apr. 13, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-120--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The Missile Defeat
Posture and Strategy of the United States--the Fiscal Year 2017
President's Budget Request. Apr. 14, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-121--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Evaluating DOD Investments: Case
Studies in Afghanistan Initiatives and U.S. Weapons
Sustainment. Apr. 15, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-122--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on U.S. Industry Perspectives on the
Department of Defense's Policies, Roles and Responsibilities
for Foreign Military Sales. May 11, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-123--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Assessing the Department of Defense's
Execution of Responsibilities in the U.S. Foreign Military
Sales Program. May 17, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-124--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection
Forces and Readiness joint hearing on Navy Force Structure and
Readiness: Perspectives from the Fleet. May 26, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-125--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Stopping the Money Flow: The War on
Terror Finance (joint with Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, and Trade of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs). June 9, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-126--Full Committee hearing on Department of
Defense Update on the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness
(FIAR) Plan. June 15, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-127--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth
Generation Fighter Aircraft. June 18, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-128--Full Committee hearing on Military Cyber
Operations. June 22, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-129--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Aviation Readiness. July 6, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-130--Full Committee hearing on Goldwater-
Nichols Reform: The Way Ahead. July 7, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-131--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on South China Sea Maritime Disputes (joint with
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs). July 7, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-132--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Air Dominance and the Critical Role of Fifth
Generation Fighters. July 13, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-133--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Oversight of the European Reassurance
Initiative. July 13, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-134--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Naval Dominance in Undersea Warfare. July 14,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-135--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on President Obama's Nuclear Deterrent Modernization Plans and
Budgets: The Military Requirements. July 14, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-136--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Deferred Maintenance in the Nuclear Security Enterprise:
Safety and Mission Risks. Sept. 7, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-137--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Views on H.R. 4298: Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial
Act and H.R. 5458: Veterans TRICARE Choice Act. Sept. 8, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-138--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Next Generation Air Space Control--Ensuring
Air Force Compliance by January 1, 2020. Sept. 14, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-139--Full Committee hearing on 15 Years after
9-11: The State of the Fight Against Islamic Terrorism. Sept.
21, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-140--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces in the South
China Sea. Sept. 21, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-141--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Security Space: 21st Century Challenges, 20th
Century Organization. Sept. 27, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-142--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Laboratories:
Innovation through Science and Engineering in Support of
Military Operations. Sept. 28, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-143--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Force Management Levels in Iraq and
Afghanistan; Readiness and Strategic Considerations. Dec. 1,
2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-144--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on California National Guard Bonus Repayment Issue.
Dec. 7, 2016.
H.A.S.C. 114-145--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Oversight Review of the U.S. Navy's
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program. Dec. 8, 2016.
PRESS RELEASES
First Session
December 2015:
12/31/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 4-8
12/17/15--Thornberry On Defense Secretary's Improper Use Of
Personal Email For Official Business
12/16/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: Dec. 21-Jan. 1
12/11/15--Chairmen Nunes, Thornberry, Frelinghuysen
Announce Creation of Joint Task Force to Investigate
Allegations of Intelligence Manipulation
12/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: December 14-18
12/10/15--Thornberry/Hartzler On Release Of Taliban 5
Report
12/9/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
12/9/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
12/8/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
12/7/15Byrne/Gallego To Host Press Conference With
Colombian Ambassador
12/6/15--Chairman Thornberry on the President's Address to
the Nation
12/3/15--Heck Statement on Secretary Carter's Announcement
Opening All Combat Jobs to Women
12/3/15--Armed Services Committee Chairmen Statement On
Decision To Open All Combat Positions To Women
12/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
12/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
12/2/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: December 7-11
12/2/15--Thornberry On WSJ GTMO Story
12/1/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
12/1/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
12/1/15--Chairman Thornberry's Opening Remarks
November 2015:
11/25/15--National Defense Authorization Act for 2016
Becomes Law
11/25/15--Armed Services Committee Leaders on Kunduz
Investigation
11/24/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 30--December 4
11/19/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 23-27
11/19/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
11/18/15--Thornberry on White House Decision to Delay GTMO
Plan
11/18/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 16-20
11/17/15--Thornberry On OPM/DHS/OMB Failure to Appear
Before HASC
11/16/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
11/15--/15--Thornberry Talks Paris Attacks With Maria
Bartiromo
11/13/15--Thornberry on Paris Attacks
11/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 16-20
11/4/15--FY16 NDAA Resource Kit
11/4/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 9-13
11/3/15--FY16 NDAA
11/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
11/3/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
October 2015:
10/30/15--Thornberry On Reports Of White House Decision To
Send Troops To Syria
10/28/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
10/28/15--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
10/28/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Today
10/27/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 2-6
10/27/15--Thornberry To Support Bipartisan Budget Agreement
10/27/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
10/26/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 26-30
10/22/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
10/22/15--President Will Veto the Defense Bill
10/22/15--Thornberry, McCain and Congressional Iraq and
Afghanistan Vets on NDAA Veto
10/21/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
10/20/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 26-30
10/15/15--Thornberry On Afghanistan Troop Levels
10/14/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 19-23
10/9/15--Thornberry on President's Failed Syria Policy
10/9/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 12-16
10/8/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
10/8/15--Thornberry Previews Afghanistan Hearing
10/7/15--Thornberry on NDAA Passage
10/7/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
10/6/15--Thornberry To Army: Postpone Martland Discharge
10/6/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 5-9
10/5/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 5-9
10/1/15--Defense Bill Passes 270-156
10/1/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
September 2015:
9/30/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: October 5-9
9/30/15--Cyber Week Readout
9/30/15--Thornberry on Defense Bill Veto Threat
9/30/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
9/29/15--Thornberry Releases NDAA Conference Report
9/29/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
9/29/15--House/Senate Armed Services Leaders To Discuss
NDAA
9/28/15--Thornberry on Kunduz
9/22/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 28--October 2
9/18/15--Wilson Previews Roundtable
9/11/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 14-18
9/11/15--Thornberry On 9/11 Anniversary
9/10/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
9/10/15--Thornberry Availability On Iran
9/10/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
9/9/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
9/7/15--Thornberry Returns from Afghanistan
9/4/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
9/2/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 7-11
July 2015:
7/30/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: August 3--September 4
7/29/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
7/21/15--Thornberry Calls On President To Lower Flags
7/17/15--Armed Services Chairmen Advancing Legislation to
Protect Troops at U.S. Military Facilities
7/16/15--Thornberry On Murder Of Four Marines
7/16/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 20-24
7/14/15--Thornberry on Iran Announcement
7/10/15--In Wake Of Breach Thornberry To Examine Force
Protection And Security Clearance Process
7/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 13-17
7/9/15--Thornberry on United Kingdom's Commitment to
National Defense
7/8/15--Thornberry on Army Force Reductions
7/6/15--Thornberry on President's ISIL Update
7/3/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 6-11
7/1/15--Thornberry on Iran Nuclear Agreement
June 2015:
6/26/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 29-July 3
6/26/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
6/25/15--NDAA Conference Begins
6/25/15--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
6/25/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
6/24/15--Opening Remarks Of Chairman Wilson
6/22/15--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: June 22-26
6/22/15--Thornberry To Deliver Remarks on Russia To The
Atlantic Council
6/19/15--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: June 22-26
6/19/15--Thornberry on Senate Passage of FY16 NDAA
6/17/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
6/16/15--Thornberry Previews Hearing on U.S. Policy &
Strategy in the Middle East
6/15/15--Thornberry To Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
6/12/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 15-19
6/11/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
6/10/15--READOUT: Wilson & Langevin Host Briefing on DoD's
Transfer of Live Anthrax
6/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 15-19
6/10/15--Thornberry on Additional U.S. Forces in Iraq
6/10/15--Thornberry/Wilson/Langevin Brief On Camera
Availability Before Anthrax Briefing
6/8/15--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
6/4/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 8-12
6/3/15--Thornberry to Reid: Meeting Troops' Needs Is Never
A Waste Of Time
6/2/15--Readout: Thornberry Comments on CJCS Roundtable
with Armed Services Committee
6/2/15--Readout: Thornberry Comments on CJCS Roundtable
with Armed Services Committee
6/2/15--Readout: Thornberry Comments on CJCS Roundtable
with Armed Services Committee
May 2015:
5/28/15--Thornberry/Hartzler on Anniversary of Taliban 5
Transfer
5/28/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 1-5
5/20/15--Thornberry on President's Address to Coast Guard
Grads
5/18/15--Thornberry & Smith Statement on Iraq Train & Equip
Language in NDAA
5/15/15--House Passes NDAA
5/12/15--H.R. 1735 FY16 NDAA Comes to the House Floor
5/11/15--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
5/5/15--Thornberry on General Dunford
April 2015:
4/30/15--H.R. 1735 Passes House Armed Services Committee
4/29/15--Thornberry on FY16 NDAA Markup
4/27/15--Thornberry Releases Defense Authorization Act
4/23/15--Thornberry on Weinstein & Lo Porto
4/23/15--UPDATE: FY16 NDAA Subcommittee Markup Schedule
4/23/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Heck
4/23/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
4/22/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Wittman
4/22/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
4/22/15--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Markup Release
4/22/15--Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces
Markup Release
4/22/15--Subcommittee on Military Personnel Markup Release
4/22/15--Subcommittee on Tactical Air & Land Markup Release
4/21/15--Subcommittee on Readiness Markup
4/21/15--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & Capabilities
Markup
4/21/15--FY16 NDAA Subcommittee Markup Press Background
Briefings
4/20/15--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Tuesday
4/17/15--HASC to Distribute NDAA Amendments by Email
4/15/15--Chairman Rogers' Opening Statement
4/15/15--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
4/15/15--HASC Staff Host OTR Session on NDAA Markup
Logistics
4/14/15--Thornberry, Smith Begin FY 2016 Defense Process
4/14/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Turner
4/14/15--UPDATE: FY16 NDAA Markup Schedule
4/10/15--Thornberry on Major General Post
4/8/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: April 13-17
4/2/15--Thornberry Releases the FY16 NDAA Markup Schedule
March 2015:
3/31/15--Thornberry on Egypt
3/26/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 30-April 10
3/26/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
3/26/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Turner
3/26/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Wittman
3/25/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers
3/25/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
3/25/15--Thornberry on Bergdahl
3/25/15--Thornberry/Smith Introduce DOD Acquisition Reform
Bill
3/25/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Heck
3/24/15--Thornberry Welcomes Rep. Russell
3/24/15--Opening Statement of Chairman Rogers'
3/24/15--Thornberry on Afghanistan
3/23/15--Chairman Thornberry Unveils Defense Reform
Proposal
3/20/15--Thornberry to Unveil Reform Proposal at CSIS
3/19/15--Armed Services Staff Background Briefing on
Acquisition Reform
3/18/15--Thornberry Announces Selection for National
Commission on the Future of the U.S. Army
3/18/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 23-27
3/18/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
3/18/15--Chairman Forbes' Opening Statement
3/17/15--Chairman Rogers' Opening Statement
3/16/15--Thornberry Previews Hearing on The Fiscal Year
2016 National Defense Authorization Budget
3/13/15--Media Alert: Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle
Monday
3/12/15--HASC Hearing Schedule Update: March 17
3/10/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 16-20
3/4/15--Chairman Wittman's Opening Statement
3/4/15--Thursday March 5 Hearing Postponed
3/4/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
3/4/15--Chairman Forbes' Opening Statement
February 2015:
2/27/15--Thornberry Releases Budget Views & Estimates
Letter
2/25/15--Chairman Thornberry Previews Tomorrow's AUMF
Hearing
2/25/15--Chairman Wilson's Opening Statement
2/25/15--Chairman Forbes' Opening Statement
2/24/15--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 2-6
2/24/15--Thornberry Previews Hearing on Emerging Security
Challenges in Europe
2/19/15--HASC Hearing Announcement: AUMF
2/4/15--Thornberry Names Armed Services Vice Chairs
2/2/15--Thornberry on President's Budget Request
January 2015:
1/28/15--Thornberry, Smith Announce Final Subcommittee
Rosters
1/21/15--READOUT: Thornberry Leads Roundtable on Islamic
Extremism
1/20/15--Chairman Thornberry Highlights Critical National
Security Challenges ahead of SOTU
1/16/15--Media Alert: Thornberry to Unveil Agenda in AEI
Remarks
1/15/15--Thornberry on GTMO Transfers: ``The American
People are Right to be Concerned''
1/7/15--Chairman Thornberry: ``America Stands With France''
Second Session
December 2016:
12/6/16--Statement by Thornberry & McCain on Defense
Business Board Findings on Pentagon Bureaucracy
12/2/16--House passes NDAA Conference Report 375 to 34
12/1/16--Thornberry on Mattis Selection
November 2016:
11/20/16--Thornberry files FY17 NDAA Conference Report
11/30/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: December 5-9
11/29/16--Armed Services Staff Background Briefing on NDAA
today
11/22/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 28-December 2
11/20/16--Thornberry on National Security Agency reports
11/18/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 21-25
11/16/16--Thornberry & Smith on passing of Mel Laird
11/10/16--Thornberry on Additional Funding Request
11/10/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 14-18
11/1/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: November 1-11
October 2016:
10/27/16--Thornberry on Marine CH-53 Investigation
10/26/16--House Armed Services Committee Leaders on
suspending collection of bonuses
10/19/16--Thornberry, Nunes warn of Russian Nuke Violations
10/4/16--Thornberry on alarming developments with New Start
Treaty
September 2016:
9/30/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: October
9/29/16--Thornberry on Iraq Troop Deployments
9/28/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
9/28/16--National Security Council on Relationship With
China: It's Complicated, Not a Competition
9/27/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
9/22/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: September 19-23
9/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
9/21/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 26-30
9/15/16--Thornberry on Walorski Bill to Stop GTMO Transfers
9/14/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 19-23
9/9/16--Thornberry on North Korea Nuclear Test
9/9/16--In Remembrance of September 11, 2001
9/8/16--Govt Watchdog Sounds Alarm on Readiness
9/8/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
9/8/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 12-16
9/7/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
9/6/16--Thornberry: The American People/Our Troops Deserve
Better
9/1/16--Thornberry Denounces President's Decision on Troop
Pay
August 2016:
8/31/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: September 5-9
8/31/16--Thornberry Praises Army Rapid Capabilities office
8/26/16--GTMO to Close?
8/11/16--Congressional Task Force on Centcom Releases
Initial Report
8/1/16--Thornberry Statement on Khizr Khan Speech/Military
Service
July 2016:
7/22/16--Thornberry to Host ``off Camera'' Press Round
Table Monday
7/20/16--Thornberry Remembers Representative Takai
7/15/16--HASC Hearing Schedule--July-August
7/14/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
7/14/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
7/14/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: July 10-16
7/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
7/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
7/13/16--Rogers Urges President to Stay the Course on
Nuclear Modernization
7/12/16--Congress to Commissary Customers: We Have Your
Back
7/12/16--Thornberry on South China Sea Ruling
7/11/16--Thornberry on White House Sending More Troops to
Iraq
7/8/16--Thornberry on Secdef Afghanistan Comments
7/8/16--Thornberry on Thaad In South Korea
7/8/16--NDAA Goes to Conference
7/7/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
7/6/16--Thornberry on President's New Afghanistan Troop
Caps
7/6/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
7/5/16--Thornberry to Discuss FY17 NDAA at Heritage
June 2016:
6/30/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: July 4-8
6/30/16--Chairman Thornberry on Pentagon Transgender Policy
Change
6/29/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: July 4-8
6/24/16--Thornberry on Change to DOD Transgender Policy
6/21/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 27-July 1
6/20/16--Military Aircraft Accidents Costing Lives
6/15/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 20-24
6/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
6/13/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 13-18
6/12/16--Thornberry Statement on Orlando Attack
6/9/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 13-17
6/3/16--Thornberry Comments on Recent Military Casualties
6/2/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: June 6-10
May 2016:
5/26/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
5/25/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 30-June 3
5/25/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
5/20/16--Update: HASC Hearing Schedule: May 23-27
5/18/16--Defense Bill Passes the House
5/18/16--The Importance of Replacing Worn Out Equipment
5/17/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 23-27
5/17/16--``The Bill Payer For a Lack of Readiness Is...''
5/16/16--Defense Bill Comes to the House Floor
5/16/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 16-20
5/11/16--Thornberry Introduces Major Reforms to National
Security Council
5/11/16--`They Were For It Before They Were Against It'
5/11/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
5/5/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: May 9-13
5/3/16--U.S. Air Power Needs an F-22 Upgrade
5/3/16--Marine Corps Times: Fighter Squadrons Don't Have
Enough Working Aircraft
5/2/16--Gutting Readiness is What's Objectionable
5/2/16--The Hill: Experts Warn Weapons Gap Is Shrinking
Between US, Russia and China
April 2016:
4/28/16--Thornberry on Committee Passage of NDAA
4/27/16--Opening Statement of Chairman Thornberry
4/25/16--Thornberry Releases FY17 NDAA
4/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
4/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
4/21/16--FY17 NDAA Full Committee Markup
4/21/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
4/20/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
4/20/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
4/20/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
4/19/16--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
4/19/16--Subcommittee on Seapower & Projection Forces
4/19/16--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats & Capabilities
4/19/16--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
4/19/16--Subcommittee on Tactical Air & Land Forces
4/19/16--Subcommittee on Readiness
4/18/16--Subcommittee Markup Press Briefings
4/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
4/15/16--Thornberry on Dod Brac Report
4/14/16--Subcommittee Markup Press Briefings
4/14/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
4/14/16--HASC Markup Schedule
4/13/16--HASC to Distribute NDAA Amendments By Email
4/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
4/12/16--Thornberry, Smith Begin FY17 National Defense
Authorization Process
4/11/16--HASC Staff Host OTR Session on NDAA Markup
Logistics
4/7/16--HASC Hearing Schedule April 11-15
March 2016:
3/24/16--HASC Hearing Schedule
3/24/16--Thornberry Comments on Administration's ISIL
Strategy
3/23/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
3/22/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
3/22/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
3/22/16--Chairman Thornberry's Opening Remarks
3/17/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
3/16/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
3/16/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
3/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
3/15/16--Thornberry Releases Acquisition Reform Bill
3/15/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
3/15/16--HASC Hearing Schedule
3/14/16--Thornberry Discusses Defense Acquisition Reform
Proposals at Brookings
3/14/16--HASC Staff to Background Press on Acquisition
Reform
3/13/16--Thornberry Discusses Defense Acquisition Reform
Proposals at Brookings
3/11/16--HASC Staff to Background Press on Acquisition
Reform
3/11/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 14-18
3/10/16--Thornberry on Iran Missile Tests
3/9/16--UPDATE: HASC Hearing Schedule: March 14-18
3/8/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: March 14-18
3/3/16--HASC Hearing Schedule
3/3/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Today
3/3/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
3/2/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Thursday
3/2/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
3/2/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Thursday
3/2/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
3/1/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
3/1/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
February 2016:
2/26/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
2/26/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
2/25/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Forbes
2/24/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
2/24/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
2/24/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
2/24/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 29-March 4
2/23/16--Thornberry Comments on White House's Plan to Close
GTMO
2/17/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 22-26
2/16/16--White House Fails to Deliver Strategy to Counter
Islamic Extremism
2/12/16--Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Hartzler
2/12/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
2/11/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
2/11/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 15-19
2/10/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
2/10/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Turner
2/9/16--Thornberry Comments on DOD Budget Proposal
2/8/16--Thornberry Sends Views & Estimates to The Budget
Committee
2/7/16--Thornberry Statement on North Korean Missile Launch
2/4/16--Thornberry Reminds White House of Statutory
Requirements for GTMO Report
2/3/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: February 8-12
2/3/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wilson
2/3/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
2/2/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
2/2/16--Thornberry on Secretary Carter's FY17 Budget
Preview
January 2016:
1/29/16--Thornberry to Host Press Gaggle Monday
1/25/16--UPDATE: HASC Hearing Schedule: January 25-29
1/14/16--Thornberry on release of 10 more GTMO detainees
1/14/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 18-22
1/13/16--Thornberry's Remarks As Prepared For Delivery
1/13/16--Thornberry Discusses Strength & Agility In
National Security Speech
1/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Heck
1/13/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
1/12/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
1/12/16--Thornberry to Deliver National Security Speech at
National Press Club
1/8/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Wittman
1/7/16--Thornberry to Deliver National Security Speech at
National Press Club
1/7/16--Opening Remarks of Chairman Thornberry
1/6/16--Thornberry on North Korea Nuke Test
1/5/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 11-15
1/5/16--HASC Hearing Schedule: January 4-8
1/5/16--Thornberry to Deliver National Security Speech at
National Press Club
[all]